NIST Technical Note 1889v3
 

CFAST – Consolidated Fire 

And Smoke Transport 

(Version 7) 

Volume 3: Verification and Validation 

Guide 

Richard D. Peacock 

Glenn P. Forney 

Paul A. Reneke 

This publication is available free of charge from: 

http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.TN.1889v3 

NIST Technical Note 1889v3 

CFAST – Consolidated Fire 

And Smoke Transport 

(Version 7) 

Volume 3: Verification and Validation 

Guide 

Richard D. Peacock 

Glenn P. Forney 

Paul A. Reneke 

This publication is available free of charge from: 

http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.TN.1889v3 

October 2015 

CFAST Version 7.0.0 

GIT Revision: Gitv7-0-g4eddb8a 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

U.S. Department of Commerce 

Penny Pritzker, Secretary 

National Institute of Standards and Technology 

Willie May, Acting Under Secretary of Commerce for Standards and Technology and Acting Director 

 

Disclaimer 

The U. S. Department of Commerce makes no warranty, expressed or implied, to users of CFAST 

and associated computer programs, and accepts no responsibility for its use. Users of CFAST 

assume sole responsibility under Federal law for determining the appropriateness of its use in any 

particular application; for any conclusions drawn from the results of its use; and for any actions 

taken or not taken as a result of analyses performed using these tools. CFAST is intended for use 

only by those competent in the field of fire safety and is intended only to supplement the informed 

judgment of a qualified user. The software package is a computer model which may or may not 

have predictive value when applied to a specific set of factual circumstances. Lack of accurate 

predictions by the model could lead to erroneous conclusions with regard to fire safety. All results 

should be evaluated by an informed user. 

National Institute of Standards and Technology Technical Note 1889v1 

Natl. Inst. Stand. Technol. Tech. Note 1889v3, 336 pages (October 

2015) CODEN: NTNOEF 

This publication is available free of charge from: 

http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.TN.1889v1 

iii
 
iv
 
Intent and Use 

The algorithms, procedures, and computer programs described in this report constitute a methodology for predicting some of the consequences resulting from a prescribed fire. They have been 

compiled from the best knowledge and understanding currently available, but have important limitations that must be understood and considered by the user. The program is intended for use by 

persons competent in the field of fire safety and with some familiarity with personal computers. It 

is intended as an aid in the fire safety decision-making process. 

v
 
vi
 
Abstract 

This volume of the CFAST Technical Reference Guide provides details of the verification and validation process. It is based in part on the “Standard Guide for Evaluating the Predictive Capability 

of Deterministic Fire Models,” ASTM E 1355 [1]. ASTM E 1355 defines model evaluation as “the 

process of quantifying the accuracy of chosen results from a model when applied for a specific 

use.” The model evaluation process consists of two main components: verification and validation. 

Verification is a process to check the correctness of the solution of the governing equations. Verification does not imply that the governing equations are appropriate; only that the equations are 

being solved correctly. Validation is a process to determine the appropriateness of the governing 

equations as a mathematical model of the physical phenomena of interest. Typically, validation 

involves comparing model results with experimental measurement. Differences that cannot be explained in terms of numerical errors in the model or uncertainty in the measurements are attributed 

to the assumptions and simplifications of the physical model. 

vii
 
viii
 
Acknowledgments 

The following individuals and organizations played a role in the validation process of CFAST. 

• Continuing support for CFAST is via internal funding at the National Institute of Standards 

and Technology (NIST). 

• In addition, support is provided by other agencies of the U.S. Federal Government, most notably the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Office of Research and the U.S. Department of Energy. The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Research has funded 

key validation experiments, the preparation of the CFAST manuals, and the development of 

various sub-models that are of importance in the area of nuclear power plant safety. Special 

thanks to Mark Salley, David Stroup, and Jason Dreisbach for their efforts and support. Support to refine the software development and quality assurance process for CFAST has been 

provided by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). The assistance of Subir Sen and Debra 

Sparkman in understanding DOE software quality assurance programs and the application 

of the process to CFAST is gratefully acknowledged. Thanks are also due to Allan Coutts, 

Washington Safety Management Solutions for his insight into the application of fire models 

to nuclear safety applications and detailed review of the CFAST document updates for DOE. 

• Anthony Hamins of NIST directed the NIST/NRC and WTC experiments, and quantified the 

experimental uncertainty of these and other experiments used in this study. Alex Maranghides 

was the Director of the Large Fire Laboratory at NIST at the time these tests were conducted, 

and he helped to design the experiments. Therese McAllister oversaw the instrumentation of 

the structural steel during the WTC experiments. 

• Anthony Hamins developed the technique of evaluating experimental uncertainty that is used 

throughout this Guide. 

• Kevin McGrattan and Randy McDermott of the Fire Research Division at NIST developed 

the automated process for validation and verification testing of the Fire Dynamics Simulator 

(FDS) model. We use this same process for validation and verification testing of CFAST. 

• Kevin McGrattan of the Fire Research Division and Blaza Toman of the Statistical Engineering Division of NIST developed the method of quantifying the model uncertainty. 

• For the NIST/NRC tests, Alex Maranghides was in charge of the Large Fire Laboratory at 

NIST where these tests were conducted, and helped to design the experiments. Thanks also 

to technicians Laurean Delauter, Jay McElroy, and Jack Lee who constructed and conducted 

these validation experiments at NIST. 

ix
 
• Steve Nowlen, formerly at Sandia National Laboratories provided data, documentation and 

further information for the NRC-sponsored experiments referred to in this document and the 

”FM/SNL Test Series” (Factory Mutual and Sandia National Laboratories conducted these 

experiments). 

• Thanks to VTT, Finland, for their contribution of experimental data, referred to in this document as the “VTT Large Hall Experiments.” 

• Bryan Klein, currently employed at Thunderhead Engineering, Inc., assisted in the development of techniques to automatically generate the plots that are found throughout this Guide. 

• David Sheppard, currently of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), conducted the experiments referred to as the “UL/NFPRF Test Series” on behalf of the Fire 

Protection Research Foundation (then known as the National Fire Protection Research Foundation) while working at Underwriters Labs in Northbrook, Illinois. Sheppard, along with 

Bryan Klein, currently employed at Thunderhead Engineering, Inc., conducted the experiments referred to as the “ATF Corridors” series in 2008. 

• Ken Steckler provided details about the “Steckler Compartment Experiments” of 1979. 

• Michael Spearpoint and masters degree student Rob Fleury of the University of Canterbury, 

New Zealand, supplied heat flux measurements from propane burner fires (Fleury Heat Flux). 

• Taylor Myers, a student at the University of Maryland and a Summer Undergraduate Research Fellow (SURF) at NIST, analyzed the Vettori Flat sprinkler experiments. Thanks 

also to Bob Vettori of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and formerly of NIST for 

his help in locating the original test data and laboratory notebooks. Taylor Myers also analyzed the NIST Home Smoke Alarm (Dunes 2000) experiments and the WTC Spray Burner 

experiments using CFAST. 

• Barbara Hall, a student at the Worcester Polytechnic Institute and a summer intern at NIST, 

analyzed the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory experiments using CFAST. 

• Tony Feric, a student at the University of Maryland and a summer intern at NIST, developed 

many of the verification tests included in this guide. 

• Brianna Gillespie, a student at the Worcester Polytechnic Institute and a summer intern at 

NIST, also contributed to the verification tests included in this guide. 

x
 
Contents 

Disclaimer iii
 

Intent and Use v
 

Abstract vii
 

Acknowledgments ix
 

1 Overview 1
 

1.1 What is Model Validation? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
 

1.2 Blind, Specified, and Open Validation Experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
 

1.3 How to Use this Guide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
 

2 Survey of Past Verification and Validation Work 5
 

2.1 Model Sensitivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
 

2.2 Comparisons of CFAST with Full-Scale Experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
 

2.2.1 Fire Plumes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
 

2.2.2 Multiple Compartments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
 

2.2.3 Large Compartments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
 

2.2.4 Mechanical Ventilation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
 

2.2.5 Sprinkler Activation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
 

2.2.6 Flashover . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
 

2.3 Comparisons of CFAST with Actual Fires . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
 

2.4 Comparisons of CFAST for Special Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
 

2.4.1 Nuclear Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
 

2.4.2 Small Compartments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
 

2.4.3 Railway and Vehicle Tunnels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
 

2.4.4 Non-Uniform Compartments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
 

3 Verification 15
 

3.1 Energy Balance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
 

3.1.1 Temperature Equilibrium via Heat Conduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
 

3.1.2 Temperature Equilibrium via a Window . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
 

3.1.3 Temperature Equilibrium via a Window at a High Elevation . . . . . . . . 17
 

3.2 Mass Balance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
 

xi
 
3.2.1 A Fire in a Single, Sealed Compartment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
 

3.2.2 A Fire in a Compartment Connected to Another via a Door . . . . . . . . . 19
 

3.2.3 A Fire in a Compartment Connected to Another via a Ceiling Vent . . . . . 19
 

3.2.4 A Fire in a Four Compartment Assembly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
 

3.3 Energy Balance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
 

3.3.1 A Fire in a Single, Sealed Compartment with a Single Zone . . . . . . . . 22
 

3.3.2 A Fire in a Single, Sealed Compartment with Two Zones . . . . . . . . . . 22
 

3.4 Ventilation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
 

3.4.1 Pressure Change as Air Flows Through a Single Compartment . . . . . . . 24
 

3.4.2 Temperature and Pressure Changes of Steady-State Air Flow . . . . . . . . 24
 

3.4.3 Temperature and Pressure Changes of Non Steady-State Air Flow . . . . . 24
 

3.4.4 Determining the Velocity Profile of Air Flowing Through a Doorway . . . 25
 

3.5 Heat Transfer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
 

3.5.1 Measuring the Temperature Change of a Thermally Thin Target . . . . . . 26
 

3.5.2 Measuring the Temperature Change of a Cylindrical Target . . . . . . . . . 27
 

3.6 Sprinklers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
 

3.6.1 Utilizing a Sprinkler to Detect and Suppress a Fire . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
 

3.7 Summary of Verification Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
 

4 Description of Validation Experiments 31
 

4.1 ATF Corridors Experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
 

4.2 Fleury Heat Flux Measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
 

4.3 FM Four Room Including Corridor Test Series . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
 

4.4 FM / SNL Test Series . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
 

4.5 iBMB Compartment Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
 

4.6 LLNL Enclosure Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
 

4.7 NBS Single Room Tests with Furniture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
 

4.8 NBS Multi-Compartment Test Series . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
 

4.9 NIST / NRC Compartment Experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
 

4.10 NIST Smoke Alarm Experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
 

4.11 PRISME Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
 

4.12 SP Adiabatic Surface Temperature Experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
 

4.13 Steckler Compartment Experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
 

4.14 UL/NFPRF Sprinkler, Vent, and Draft Curtain Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
 

4.15 UL/NIST Vent Experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
 

4.16 USN High Bay Hangar Experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
 

4.17 Vettori Flat Ceiling Experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
 

4.18 VTT Large Hall Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
 

4.19 WTC Spray Burner Test Series . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
 

5 Hot Gas Layer Temperature and Depth 73
 

5.1 Summary of Hot Gas Layer Temperature and Height . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
 

xii
 
6 Fire Plumes, Ceiling Jets, and Device Activation 79
 

6.1 Flame Height . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
 

6.2 Plume Temperature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
 

6.3 Ceiling Jets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
 

6.4 Device Activation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
 

7 Gas Species and Smoke 85
 

7.1 Oxygen, CO2, and CO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
 

7.2 Smoke . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
 

8 Pressure 89
 

9 Surface Temperature 91
 

9.1 Compartment Ceiling, Wall, and Floor Temperature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
 

9.2 Target Temperature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
 

10 Surface Heat Flux 97
 

10.1 Heat Flux to Compartment Ceiling, Wall, and Floor Surfaces . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
 

10.2 Heat Flux to Targets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
 

11 Summary and Conclusions 101
 

11.1 Summary of CFAST Model Uncertainty Statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
 

11.2 Normality Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
 

References 107
 

Appendices 114
 

A Calculation of Layer Height and the Average Upper and Lower Layer Temperatures 115
 

B Summary of Verification Results 117
 

C Transient Model / Experiment Comparison Graphs 119
 

C.1 ATF Corridors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
 

C.2 Fleury Experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
 

C.3 FM Four Room Including Corridor Test Series . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
 

C.4 FM/SNL Test Series . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
 

C.5 iBMB Compartment Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
 

C.6 LLNL Enclosure Series . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
 

C.7 NBS Single Room Tests with Furniture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
 

C.8 NBS Multi-Compartment Test Series . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
 

C.9 NIST Smoke Alarm Experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
 

C.10 NIST/NRC Test Series . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
 

C.11 PRISME DOOR Experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240
 

C.12 SP Adiabatic Surface Temperature Experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267
 

C.13 Steckler Compartment Experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271
 

xiii
 
C.14 UL/NFPRF Series I Experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279
 

C.15 UL/NIST Vent Experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 282
 

C.16 USN High Bay Hangar Experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285
 

C.17 Vettori Flat Ceiling Experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289
 

C.18 VTT Large Hall Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 296
 

C.19 WTC Test Series . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299
 

xiv
 
List of Figures 

2.1	 Comparison of correlations, CFAST predictions, and experimental data for the
 

prediction of flashover in a compartment fire. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
 

3.1	 Results of the test case basic tempequilib.in . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
 

3.2	 Results of the test case basic tempequilib window.in . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
 

3.3	 Results of the test case basic tempequilib window elevation.in . . . . . . 17
 

3.4 Results of the test case species mass 1.in
 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
 

3.5 Results of the test case species mass 1.in
 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
 

3.6 Results of the test case species mass 3.in
 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
 

3.7 Results of the test case species mass 4.in
 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
 

3.8 Results of the test case species mass 4.in
 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
 

3.9 Results of the test case species mass 4.in
 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
 

3.10 Results of the test case sealed test.in . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 22


3.11 Results of the test case sealed test 2 layers.in . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
 

3.12 Results of the test case ventilation 1.in . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
 

3.13 Results of the test case ventilation 2.in . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
 

3.14 Results of the test case ventilation 3.in . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
 

3.15 Results of the test case ventilation 4.in . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
 

3.16 Results of the test case radiation 1.in . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
 

3.17 Results of the test case radiation 2.in . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
 

3.18 Results of the test case sprinkler 1.in . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
 

4.1	 Geometry of the ATF Corridors Experiments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
 

4.2	 Overview of the Factory Mutual Four Room test series. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
 

4.3	 Geometry of the FM/SNL Experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
 

4.4	 Detailed plan, side, and perspective schematic drawings of the iBMB pool fire
 

experimental arrangement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
 

4.5	 Detailed plan, side, and perspective schematic drawings of the iBMB cable fire
 

experimental arrangement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
 

4.6	 Geometry of the LLNL Enclosure Experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
 

4.7	 Plan and elevation view schematic of experimental room for NBS single room tests
 

with furniture. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
 

4.8	 Burning specimen during NBS single room tests with furniture. . . . . . . . . . . . 47
 

4.9	 Photo of a 100 kW fire with the burner located against the rear wall of one of the
 

small compartments in the NBS Multi-Compartment test Series. . . . . . . . . . . 49
 

xv
 
4.10 Plan, side and perspective schematic drawings of the NBS experimental arrangement, including the burner. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
 

4.11 Photograph of a 1 MW heptane fire seen through the open doorway.	 Photo provided by Anthony Hamins, NIST. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
 

4.12 Plan, side and perspective schematic drawings of the NIST NRC experimental
 

arrangement. The fuel pan and cables B, D, F, and G (dotted lines) are also shown. 52
 

4.13 Geometry of the NIST Home Smoke Alarm Experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
 

4.14 Geometry of the SP/AST compartment for Test 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
 

4.15 Geometry of the Steckler Compartment Experiments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
 

4.16 Plan view of the UL/NFPRF Experiments, Series I. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
 

4.17 Plan view of the UL/NFPRF Experiments, Series II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
 

4.18 Geometry of the UL/NIST Experiments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
 

4.19 Geometry of the Vettori Flat Ceiling compartment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
 

4.20 Plan, side and perspective schematic drawings of the experimental arrangement of
 

the VTT large hall fire tests, including the fuel pan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
 

4.21 Photo of a 2 MW heptane fire during the VTT large hall tests. Photo provided by
 

Simo Hostikka, VTT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
 

4.22 Geometry of the WTC Experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
 

5.1	 Overall comparison of Measured and Predicted HGL Temperature. . . . . . . . . . 75
 

5.2	 Overall comparison of Measured and Predicted HGL Height. . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
 

6.1	 Comparison of Measured and Predicted Plume Centerline Temperature. . . . . . . 80
 

6.2	 Comparison of Measured and Predicted Ceiling Jet Temperature. . . . . . . . . . . 81
 

6.3	 Comparison of Measured and Predicted Ceiling Jet Temperature. . . . . . . . . . . 83
 

7.1	 Comparison of Measured and Predicted Oxygen Concentration, Carbon Dioxide
 

Concentration, and Carbon Monoxide Concentration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
 

7.2	 Comparison of Measured and Predicted Smoke Concentration. . . . . . . . . . . . 87
 

8.1	 Comparison of Measured and Predicted Compartment Pressure. . . . . . . . . . . 90
 

9.1	 Comparisons of Measured and Predicted Compartment Surface Temperature . . . . 94
 

9.2	 Comparisons of Measured and Predicted Target Temperature . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
 

10.1 Comparisons of Measured and Predicted Compartment Heat Flux to Surfaces . . . 99
 

10.2 Comparisons of Measured and Predicted Heat Flux to Targets . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
 

C.1	 Fleury Heat Flux, 100 kW fires. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
 

C.2	 Fleury Heat Flux, 150 kW fires. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
 

C.3	 Fleury Heat Flux, 200 kW fires. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
 

C.4	 Fleury Heat Flux, 250 kW fires. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
 

C.5	 Fleury Heat Flux, 300 kW fires. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
 

xvi
 
List of Tables 

4.1 Summary of important experimental parameters. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
 

4.2 Summary of FM/SNL Experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
 

4.3 Summary of LLNL Enclosure Experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
 

4.4 Summary of NIST home smoke alarm experiments selected for model validation. . 55
 

4.5 Summary of Steckler compartment experiments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
 

4.6 Summary of UL/NIST Vent experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
 

9.1 Wall measurement positions for the NIST/NRC series . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
 

9.2 Ceiling surface measurement locations for the WTC series . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
 

10.1 Heat flux gauge positions relative to the center of the fire pan in the WTC series. . . 98
 

11.1 Summary statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
 

B.1 Summary of Verification Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
 

C.1 Ceiling surface measurement locations for the WTC series . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301
 

xvii
 
xviii
 
Chapter 1 

Overview 

1.1 What is Model Validation? 

Key to ensuring the quality of the software are ongoing validation testing of the model. Validation 

typically involves comparing model simulations with experimental measurements. To say that the 

Consolidated Model of Fire and Smoke Transport (CFAST) is “validated” means that the model 

has been shown to be of a given level of accuracy for a given range of parameters for a given 

type of fire scenario. Although the CFAST developers periodically perform validation studies, it 

is ultimately the end user of the model who decides if the model is adequate for the job at hand. 

Thus, this Guide does not and cannot be considered comprehensive for every possible modeling 

scenario. 

Although there are various definitions of model validation, for example those contained in 

ASTM E 1355 [1], most define it as the process of determining how well the mathematical model 

predicts the actual physical phenomena of interest. Validation typically involves (1) comparing 

model predictions with experimental measurements, (2) quantifying the differences in light of uncertainties in both the measurements and the model inputs, and (3) deciding if the model is appropriate for the given application. This Guide only does (1) and (2). Number (3) is the responsibility 

of the model user. 

The following sections discuss key issues that you must consider when deciding whether or not 

CFAST has been validated. It depends on (a) the scenarios of interest, (b) the predicted quantities, 

and (c) the desired level of accuracy. Keep in mind that CFAST can be used to model most any 

compartment fire scenario and predict quantities of interest, but the prediction may not be accurate 

because of limitations in the description of the fire physics, and also because of limited information 

about the fuels, geometry, and so on. 

1.2 Blind, Specified, and Open Validation Experiments 

ASTM E 1355 [1] describes three basic types of validation calculations – Blind, Specified, and 

Open. 

Blind Calculation: The model user is provided with a basic description of the scenario to be modeled. For this application, the problem description is not exact; the model user is responsible 

1
 
for developing appropriate model inputs from the problem description, including additional 

details of the geometry, material properties, and fire description, as appropriate. Additional 

details necessary to simulate the scenario with a specific model are left to the judgement 

of the model user. In addition to illustrating the comparability of models in actual end-use 

conditions, this will test the ability of those who use the model to develop appropriate input 

data for the models. 

Specified Calculation: The model user is provided with a complete detailed description of model 

inputs, including geometry, material properties, and fire description. As a follow-on to the 

blind calculation, this test provides a more careful comparison of the underlying physics in 

the models with a more completely specified scenario. 

Open Calculation: The model user is provided with the most complete information about the 

scenario, including geometry, material properties, fire description, and the results of experimental tests or benchmark model runs which were used in the evaluation of the blind or 

specified calculations of the scenario. Deficiencies in available input (used for the blind calculation) should become most apparent with comparison of the open and blind calculation. 

The calculations presented in this Guide all fall into the Open category. There are several reasons 

for this, the first being the most practical: 

• All of the calculations presented in this Guide are routinely rerun. The fact that the experiments have already been performed and the results are known qualify these calculations as 

Open. 

• Some of the calculations described in this Guide did originally fall into the Specified category 

because they were first performed before the experiments were conducted. However, in 

almost every case, the experiment was not conducted exactly as specified, and the calculation 

results were not particulary useful in determining the accuracy of the model. 

• None of the calculations were truly Blind, even those performed prior to the experiments. 

The purpose of a Blind calculation is to assess the degree to which the choice of input parameters affects the outcome. However, in such cases it is impossible to discern the uncertainty 

associated from the choice of input parameters from that associated with the model itself. 

The primary purpose of this Guide is to quantify the uncertainty of the model itself, in which 

case Blind calculations are of little value. 

1.3 How to Use this Guide 

This guide presents a compilation of past and present validation exercises for the CFAST model. 

The structure of the report is as follows: 

• Chapter 2 includes a review of published literature by the National Institute of Standards and 

Technology (NIST) and others on verification, validation, and sensitivity analysis of earlier 

versions of CFAST. 

2
 
• Chapter 3 discusses verification of the model. A range of analytical calculations are compared with equivalent model predictions. These are intended to test the correctness of specific model calculations. 

• Chapter 4 provides a summary of the experiments used in the current evaluation for the 

CFAST model. 

• Chapters 5 through 10 quantifies the comparison of CFAST predictions with experimental 

measurements for a number of important model results. 

• Chapter 10 summarizes the results of the validation study. 

• Appendix A describes calculations used to estimate layer temperatures and interface height 

from individual temperature measurements in the experiments. 

• Appendix B includes graphs of experimental results and model predictions for all comparisons included in the validation study. 

As CFAST continues to develop, it will expand to include new experimental measurements of 

newly modeled physical phenomena. With each change in CFAST, the validation and verification 

tests are all redone to ensure that changes to the model are consistent with experimental measurements and the overall accuracy of the model is maintained by comparing the results between the 

old and new versions of the model. If you are embarking on a validation study, you might want to 

consider the following steps: 

1. Survey Chapter 2 to learn about past efforts by others to validate the model for applications 

similar to yours. Keep in mind that most of the referenced validation exercises have been 

performed with older versions of CFAST, and you may want to obtain the experimental data 

and the old CFAST input files and redo the simulations with the version of CFAST that you 

plan to use. 

2. Identify in Chapter 4 experimental data sets appropriate for your application. In particular, 

the summary of the experiments found in table 4.1 contains a table listing various nondimensional quantities that characterize the parameters of the experiments. For example, the 

global equivalence ratio of a compartment fire experiment indicates the degree to which the 

fire was over or under-ventilated. To say that the results of a given experiment are relevant to 

your scenario, you need to demonstrate that its parameters “fit” within the parameter space 

outlined in Table 4.1. 

3. Search the Table of Contents to find comparisons of CFAST version 7 simulations with specific parameters from relevant experiments. For a given experiment, there may be numerous 

measurements of quantities like the gas temperature, heat flux, and so on. It is a challenge 

to sort out all the plots and graphs of all the different quantities and come to some general 

conclusion. For this reason, this Guide is organized by output quantity, not by individual 

experiment or fire scenario. In this way, it is possible to assess, over a range of different 

experiments and scenarios, the performance of the model in predicting a given quantity. 

Overall trends and biases become much more clear when the data is organized this way. 

3
 
The experimental data sets and CFAST input files described in this Guide are all managed via the 

on-line project archiving system. You might want to re-run examples of interest to better understand how the calculations were designed, and how changes in the various parameters might affect 

the results. This is known as a sensitivity study, and it is difficult to document all the parameter 

variations of the calculations described in this report. Thus, it is a good idea to determine which of 

the input parameters are particularly important for your application. 

4
 
Chapter 2 

Survey of Past Verification and Validation 

Work 

CFAST has been subjected to extensive validation studies by NIST and others. This chapter provides a review of select CFAST validation efforts by NIST and others to better understand the 

quality of the predictions by the model. Some of the work has been performed at NIST, some by 

its grantees and some by engineering firms using the model. Because each organization has its 

own reasons for validating the model, the referenced papers and reports do not follow any particular guidelines. Some of the works only provide a qualitative assessment of the model, concluding 

that the model agreement with a particular experiment is “good” or “reasonable.” Sometimes, the 

conclusion is that the model works well in certain cases, not as well in others. These studies are 

included in the survey because the references are useful to other model users who may have a 

similar application and are interested in qualitative assessment. It is important to note that some 

of the papers point out flaws in early releases of CFAST that have been corrected or improved in 

more recent releases. 

2.1 Model Sensitivity 

A sensitivity analysis considers the extent to which uncertainty in model inputs influences model 

output. For a sensitivity analysis, this uncertainty includes not only that inherent in the input of 

data for specific scenarios by the model user, but also uncertainty in empirical data or numerical 

parameters in the model such as the time step size used by the model to obtain a solution. Iman 

and Helton [2] studied the sensitivity of complex computer models developed to simulate the risk 

of severe nuclear accidents which may include fire and other risks. Consistent with the work of 

Iman and Helton, ASTM E1355 [1] provides overall guidance on typical areas of evaluation of 

the sensitivity of deterministic fire models. These areas may involve one or more of the following 

techniques: finite difference or direct analysis methods that provide an explicit solution of the sensitivity equations associated with the governing equations of the model, factorial design or Latin 

hypercube sampling studies that investigate the effect of varying the input parameters and consequential interactions between parameters that may be deemed important, and global or response 

surface methods that investigate the overall behavior of model outputs for a desired range of inputs. 

This section provides a review of the sensitivity studies that have been conducted using CFAST 

5
 
with an emphasis on uncertainty in the input. Other sensitivity investigations of CFAST are also 

available [3, 4, 5]. 

Khoudja [6] has studied the sensitivity of an early version of FAST (the predecessor of CFAST) 

with a fractional factorial design involving two levels of 16 different input parameters. The statistical design, taken from the texts by Box and Hunter [7] and Daniel [8] reduced the necessary 

model runs from more than 65,000 to 256 by studying the interactions of input parameters simultaneously. The choice of values for each input parameter represented a range for each parameter. 

The analysis of the FAST model showed sensitivity to heat loss to the compartment walls and to 

the number of compartments in the simulation. 

Walker [9] discussed the uncertainties in components of zone models and showed how uncertainty within user-supplied data affects the results of calculations using CFAST as an example. The 

study systematically varied inputs related to the fire (heat release rate, heat of combustion, mass 

loss rate, radiative fraction, and species yields) and compartment geometry (vent size and ceiling 

height). Heat release rate and ceiling height are seen to be the dominant input variables in the 

simulations. 

Peacock et al. [3] studied the sensitivity of CFAST for a range of input parameters. They 

used simple factorial designs for model inputs deemed important to investigate local behavior of 

important model outputs along with response surface methods to evaluate overall model behavior. 

2.2 Comparisons of CFAST with Full-Scale Experiments 

Several studies have been conducted specifically to validate the use of CFAST in building performance design. Dembsey [10] used CFAST version 3.1 to predict the ceiling jet temperatures, 

surface heat fluxes and heat transfer coefficients for twenty compartment fire experiments in a 

compartment that is similar in size, geometry, and construction to the standard fire test compartment specified in the Uniform Building Code [11]. Results from 330 kW, 630 kW, and 980 kW 

fires were used. In general, CFAST made predictions which were higher than the experimental results. In these cases, the temperature prediction was typically 20 % to 30 % higher than measured 

values. Much of this can be attributed to not knowing the species production (soot) and relative 

absorption of radiation by the gas layers which highlights the importance of scenario specification. This is the most common cause of “over prediction” of temperature by CFAST. A secondary 

source of discrepancy is correcting for thermal radiation of thermocouple beads. The authors provide for this correction, but the corrections cited are not as large as has been reported in other fire 

experiments [12]. 

He et al. [13] describe a series of full-scale fire experiments that were designed to investigate 

the validity of two zone models including CFAST version 3.1. The experiments, involving steady 

state burning rates and a number of ventilation conditions, were conducted in a four-story building. 

Temperature, pressure, flow velocity, smoke density and species concentrations were measured in 

various parts of the building. The stack effect and its influence on temperature distribution in a 

stair shaft were observed. Comparisons were then made between the experimental results and the 

model predictions. Early in the fire there is a few percent difference between the predictions and 

measurements; beyond 10 min, there are significant variations. Both the experiment and the model 

are internally consistent; that is, higher flow leads to a higher interface height (figure 13 in the 

paper). Once again, the difference is about 25 %. The authors discuss the effect of fuel composition 

6
 
and correction for radiation to/from thermocouple beads but did not draw firm conclusions based 

on their measurements of fuel products. 

A series of experimental results for flaming fires, obtained using realistic fires in a prototype 

apartment building were performed by Luo et al. [14]. Fuel configurations in the fire test included 

a horizontal plain polyurethane slab, mock-up chair (polyurethane slabs plus a cotton linen cover), 

and a commercial chair. CFAST version 3.1 typically over-predicted upper layer temperatures by 

10 % to 50 % depending on the test conditions and measurement location in that test. The predicted and experimental time dependent upper layer temperatures were similar in shape. The time 

to obtain peak upper layer temperatures was typically predicted to within 15 % of the experimental measurements. The authors concluded that CFAST was conservative in terms of life safety 

calculations. 

Poole et al. [15] reported the results of a cooperative project between the Kitchener, Ontario, 

Fire Department and the University of Waterloo aimed at developing design criteria for the construction of a fire fighter training facility. One particular criterion is that realistic training with 

respect to temperature, heat release and stratification be provided in such a facility. The purpose 

of this paper was to compare existing analytical heat release and upper and lower gas temperature rise correlations and models with data from actual structures which were instrumented and 

burned in collaboration with the Kitchener Fire Department. According to the authors, the CFAST 

model was used “successfully” to predict these conditions and will be used in future design of such 

facilities. 

A report by Bailey et al. [16] compares predictions by CFAST version 3.1 to data from real 

scale fire tests conducted onboard ex-USS SHADWELL, a decommissioned naval vessel. The 

phenomenon of particular interest in this validation series was the conduction of heat in the vertical 

direction through compartment ceilings and floors. As part of this work, Bailey et al. [17] compared 

CFAST temperature predictions on the unexposed walls of large metal boxes, driven by steady 

state fires. This tested the model’s prediction of radiation and conduction in both the vertical 

and horizontal directions. The model and experiment compared well within measurement error 

bounds of each. The comparison was particularly good for measurements in the fire compartment 

as well as for the compartment and deck directly above it, with predictions typically agreeing with 

experiments within measurement uncertainty. The model under-predicted the temperatures of the 

compartments and decks not directly adjacent to the fire compartment early in the tests. 

Deal [18] reviewed four computer fire models (CCFM [19], FIRST [20], FPETOOL [21] and 

FAST [22] version 18.5 (the immediate predecessor to CFAST)) to ascertain the relative performance of the models in simulating fire experiments in a small room (about 12 m3 in volume) in 

which the vent and fuel effects were varied. Peak fire size in the experiments ranged up to 800 kW. 

According to the author, all the models simulated the experimental conditions including temperature, species generation, and vent flows “quite satisfactorily.” 

Matsuyama conducted a series of full-scale experiments [23] using t2 fires 1. Fire room and 

corridor smoke filling processes were measured. The size of the corridors and arrangements of 

smoke curtains were varied in several patterns. Comparisons were then made between the experimental results and those predicted by CFAST. The author concludes that while the model does 

a “good job” of predicting experimental results, there are systematic differences which could be 

1For a range of fires, the fire growth can be represented with a power law relation of the form  ̇q = α t2 where  ̇q is 

the heat release rate of the fire, α is the fire intensity coefficient, and t is time 

7
 
reduced with some revision to zone model formulation to include the impact of smoke curtains. 

2.2.1 Fire Plumes 

Davis compared predictions by CFAST version 5 (and other models) for high ceiling spaces [24]. 

In this paper, the predictive capability of two algorithms designed to calculate plume centerline 

temperature and maximum ceiling jet temperature in the presence of a hot upper layer were compared to measurements from experiments and to predictions using the CFAST ceiling jet algorithm. 

The experiments included ceiling heights of 0.58 m to 22 m and heat release rates of 0.62 kW to 

33 MW. When compared to the experimental results, the ceiling jet algorithm tended to overpredict the upper layer temperature by 20 %. With proper adjustment for radiation effects in the 

thermocouple measurements, some of this difference disappears. The effect of entrainment of the 

upper layer gases was identified for improvement. 

2.2.2 Multiple Compartments 

Jones and Peacock [25] presented a limited set of comparisons between the FAST model (version 

18.5) and a multi-room fire test. The experiment involved a constant fire of about 100 kW in a 

three-compartment configuration of about 100 m3. They observed that the model predicted an 

upper layer temperature that was too high by about 20 % with satisfactory prediction of the layer 

interface position. These observations were made before the work of Pitts et al. [12] showed that 

the thermocouple measurements need to be corrected for radiation effects. Convective heating and 

plume entrainment were seen to limit the accuracy of the predictions. A comparison of predicted 

and measured pressures in the rooms showed accuracy within 20 %. Since pressure is the driving 

force for flow between compartments, this agreement was seen as important. 

Levine and Nelson [26] used a combination of full-scale fire testing and modeling to simulate a fire in a residence. The 1987 fire in a first-floor kitchen resulted in the deaths of three 

persons in an upstairs bedroom, one with a reported blood carboxyhemoglobin content of 91 %. 

Considerable physical evidence remained. The fire was successfully simulated at full scale in a 

fully-instrumented seven-room two-story test structure. The data collected during the test have 

been used to test the predictive abilities of two multiroom computer fire models: FAST and HARVARD VI. A coherent ceiling layer flow occurred during the full-scale test and quickly carried high 

concentrations of carbon monoxide to remote compartments. Such flow is not directly accounted 

for in either computer code. However, both codes predicted the carbon monoxide buildup in the 

room most remote from the fire. Prediction of the pre-flashover temperature rise was also ‘good’ 

according to the authors. Prediction of temperatures after flashover that occurred in the room of 

fire origin was seen as ‘less good.’ Other predictions of conditions throughout the seven test rooms 

varied from ‘good approximations’ to ‘significant deviations’ from test data. Some of these deviations are believed to be due to combustion chemistry in the hot upper layer not considered in detail 

in either of the two models. 

2.2.3 Large Compartments 

Duong [27] studied the predictions of several computer fire models (CCFM, FAST, FIRST, and BRI 

[28]), comparing the models with one another and with large fires (4 MW to 36 MW) in an aircraft 

8
 
hanger (60 000 m3). For the 4 MW fire size, he concluded that all the models are ‘reasonably 

accurate.’ At 36 MW, however, ‘none of the models did well.’ Limitations of the heat conduction 

and plume entrainment algorithms were thought to account for some of the inaccuracies. 

2.2.4 Mechanical Ventilation 

There have been two papers which have looked at the effectiveness of the mechanical ventilation 

system. The first considered a fire chamber of length 4.0 m, width 3.0 m and height 2.8 m with 

adjustable ventilation rates [29]. Burning tests were carried out with wood cribs and methanol to 

study the preflashover stage of a compartmental fire and the effect of ventilation. The mass loss rate 

of fuel, temperature distribution of the compartment and the air intake rate were measured. The 

heat release rates of the fuel were calculated and the smoke temperature was used as a validation 

parameter. A scoring system was proposed to compare the results predicted by the three models. 

According to the author, CFAST does ‘particularly well,’ though there are some differences which 

can be attributed to the zone model approach. 

A second series of experiments by Luo [30] indicate that the CFAST model (version 3.1) generally over-predicts the upper layer temperature in the burn room because the two-zone assumption is 

likely to break down in the burn room. It was found that the room-averaged temperatures obtained 

from CFAST were in ‘good overall agreement’ with the experimental results. The discrepancies 

can be attributed to the correction needed for thermocouple measurements. The CO concentration,however, was inconsistent. CFAST tended to overestimate CO concentration when the air 

handling system was in operation. This was seen due to inconsistencies in what is measured (point 

measurements) and predicted (global measurements). 

2.2.5 Sprinkler Activation 

A suppression algorithm [31] was incorporated into CFAST. Chow [32] evaluated the predictive 

capability for a sprinkler installed in an atrium roof. There were three main points being considered: the possibility of activating the sprinkler, thermal response, and water requirement. The zone 

model CFAST was used to analyze the possibility of activation of a sprinkler head. Results derived from CFAST were seen to be ‘accurate, that is, providing good agreement with experimental 

measurements.’ 

2.2.6 Flashover 

Flashover is a term describing the transition of a relatively localized interior fire to one engulfing 

the entire compartment. It is of interest to the fire service because of the danger to fire fighters and 

to building designers because of life safety and the attendant impact on occupants. Several papers 

have looked at the capability of CFAST to predict the conditions under which flashover can occur. 

Chow [33] concluded that FAST correctly predicted the onset of flashover if the appropriate 

criteria were used. The criteria were gas temperature near the ceiling, heat flux at the floor level 

and flames coming out of the openings. This analysis was based on a series of compartment fires. 

A paper by Luo et al. [34] presents a comparison of the results from CFAST version 3 against 

a comprehensive set of data obtained from one flashover fire experiment. The experimental results 

were obtained from a full-scale prototype apartment building under flashover conditions. Three 

9
 
polyurethane mattresses were used as fuel. It was found that the predicted temperatures from 

the CFAST fire model agreed well with the experimental results in most areas, once radiation 

corrections are applied to the thermocouple data. 

Collier [35] makes an attempt to quantify the fire hazards associated with a typical New Zealand 

dwelling with a series of experiments. These tests, done in a three-bedroom dwelling, included 

both non-flashover and flashover fires. The predictions by CFAST version 2 were seen by the 

author as consistent with the experiments within the uncertainty of each. 

Post-flashover fires in shipboard spaces have a pronounced effects on adjacent spaces due to 

highly conductive boundaries. CFAST (version 3.1) predictions for the gas temperature and the 

cold wall temperature were compared with shipboard fires [36]. The comparisons between the 

model and experimental data show ‘conservative predictions’ according to the authors. The authors 

attribute this to an overestimation of the average hot wall temperature and an underestimation of 

external convective losses due to wind effects. 

Finally, a comparison of CFAST with a number of simple correlations was used by Peacock 

and Babrauskas [37, 38] to simulate a range of geometries and fire conditions to predict the development of the fire up to the point of flashover. The simulations represent a range of compartment 

sizes and ceiling heights. Both the correlations and CFAST predictions were seen to provide a 

lower bound to observed occurrence of flashover. For very small or very large compartment openings, the differences between the correlations, experimental data, and CFAST predictions was more 

pronounced. 

The important test of all these prediction methods is in the comparison of the predictions with 

actual fire observations. Figure 2.1 (reference [38]) presents estimates of the energy required to 

achieve flashover for a range of room and vent sizes. This figure is an extension of the earlier work 

of Babrauskas [39] and includes additional experimental measurements from a variety of sources, 

most notably the work of Deal and Beyler [40]. For a number of the experimental observations, 

values are included that were not explicitly identified as being a minimum value at flashover. In 

addition, figure 2.1 includes predictions from the CFAST model (version 5). 

As with some of the experimental data defining flashover as an upper layer temperature reaching 600 ◦C, many experimental measures were reported as peak values rather than minimum values 

necessary to achieve flashover. Thus, ideally all the predictions should provide a lower bound for 

the experimental data. Indeed, this is consistent with the graph – the vast majority of the experimental observation

√

s lie above the correlations and model predictions. For a considerable range 

in the ratio AT /A h, the correlations of Babrauskas [39] Thomas [41], and the MQH correlation of McCaffrey et al. [42] provide similar estimates of the minimum energy required to produce 

√ flashover. The estimates of Hagglund [  ̈ 43] yields somewhat higher estimates for values of AT /A h

greater than 20 m−1/2. 

The results from the CFAST model for this single compartment scenario provide similar results 

√ to the e

√

xperiments and the correlations for most of the range of AT /A h. For small values of 

AT /A h, the CF

√

AST values rise somewhat above the values from the correlations. These small 

values of AT 

√

/A h result from either very small compartments (small AT ) or very large openings 

(large AT /A h), both of which stretch the limits of the assumptions inherent in the model. For very 

small compartments, radiation from the fire to the compartment surfaces becomes more important, 

enhancing the conductive heat losses through the walls. However, the basic two-zone assumption 

may break down as the room becomes very small. For very large openings, the calculation of 

vent flow via an orifice flow coefficient approach is likely inaccurate. Indeed, for such openings, 

10
 
Figure 2.1: Comparison of correlations, CFAST predictions, and experimental data for the prediction of flashover in a compartment fire. 

11
 
this limitation has been observed experimentally [39]. The estimates are close to the range of 

√ uncertainty shown by the correlations which also diverge at very small values of AT /A h. 

Perhaps most significant in these comparisons is that all the simple correlations provide estimates similar to the CFAST model and all the models are consistent with a wide range of experimental data. For this simple scenario, little is gained with the use of the more complex models. 

For more complicated scenarios, the comparison may not be as simple. 

2.3 Comparisons of CFAST with Actual Fires 

There are numerous cases of CFAST being used to adjudicate legal disputes. Since these are 

discussed in courts of law, there is a great deal of scrutiny of the modeling, assumptions, and 

results. Most of these simulations and comparisons are not available in the public literature. A few 

of the cases which are available are discussed below. The metric for how well the model performed 

is its ability to reproduce the time-line as observed by witnesses and the death of occupants or the 

destruction of property as was used in evidence in legal proceedings. 

As mentioned in section 2.2.2, Levine and Nelson describe the use of FAST for understanding 

the deaths of two adults in a residence in Sharon, Pennsylvania in 1987 [26]. The paper compared 

the evidence of the actual fire, a full scale mockup done at NIST and the results from FAST (version 

18) [44] and Harvard VI [45]. The most notable shortcoming of the models was the lower than 

actual temperatures in the bedrooms, caused by loss of heat through the fire barriers. This led to 

the improvement in CFAST in the mid-90s to couple compartments together so that both horizontal 

and vertical heat transfer can occur to adjacent compartments. 

Bukowski used CFAST version 3.1 to analyze a fire in New York City [46] in 1994 which 

resulted in the death of three fire fighters. The CFAST model was able to reproduce the observed 

conditions and supported the theory as to how the fire began and the cause of death of the three fire 

fighters. 

Chow describes the use and comparison of CFAST simulations with a 1996 high rise building fire in Hong Kong [47]. CFAST simulations were performed to help understand the probable 

fire environment under different conditions. Three simulations were performed to study the consequences of a fire starting in the lift shaft. Smoke flow in the simulations qualitatively matched 

those observed during the incident. 

In the early morning hours of March 25,1990 a tragic fire took the lives of 87 persons at a 

neighborhood club in the Bronx, New York [48]. The New York City Fire Department requested 

the assistance of the NIST Center for Fire Research (CFR) in understanding the factors which 

contributed to this high death toll and to develop a strategy that might reduce the risk of a similar 

occurrence in the many similar clubs operating in the city. The simulation showed the potential for 

development of untenable conditions within the club and particularly in the single exit stairway. 

2.4 Comparisons of CFAST for Special Applications 

There are several sets of comparisons used in the development of the model or specific applications 

beyond those discussed more generally above. 

12
 
2.4.1 Nuclear Facilities
 

Floyd validated CFAST version 3.1 by comparing the modeling results with measurements from 

fire tests at the Heiss-Dampf Reaktor (HDR) facility [49]. The structure was originally the containment building for a nuclear power reactor in Germany. The cylindrical structure was 20 m in 

diameter and 50 m in height topped by a hemispherical dome 10 m in radius. The building was 

divided into eight levels. The total volume of the building was approximately 11 000 m3. From 

1984 to 1991, four fire test series were performed within the HDR facility. The T51 test series 

consisted of 11 propane gas tests and three wood crib tests. To avoid permanent damage to the 

test facility, a special set of test rooms were constructed, consisting of a fire room with a narrow 

door, a long corridor wrapping around the reactor vessel shield wall, and a curtained area centered 

beneath a maintenance hatch. The fire room walls were lined with fire brick. The doorway and 

corridor walls had the same construction as the test chamber. Six gas burners were mounted in the 

fire room. The fuel source was propane gas mixed with 10 % air fed at a constant rate to one of the 

six burners. 

In general, the comparison between CFAST and the HDR results was seen as ‘good’ by the 

author, with two exceptions. The first is the over estimate of the temperature of the upper layer, 

typically within about 15 % of the experimental measurements. This is common and generally results from using too low a value for the production of soot, water (hydrogen) and carbon monoxide. 

The other exception consists of predictions in spaces where the zone model concept breaks down, 

for example in the stairways between levels. In this case, CFAST has to treat the space either in 

the filling mode (two layer approximation) or as a fully mixed zone (using the SHAFT option). 

Neither is quite correct, and in order to understand the condition in such spaces in detail (beyond 

the transfer of mass and energy), a more detailed computational fluid dynamics model must be 

used, for example, the Fire Dynamics Simulator (FDS) [50]. 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) performed an extensive verification and validation of several fire models commonly used in nuclear power plant applications [51]. These 

models included simple spreadsheet calculations, zone models (including CFAST), and CFD models. The results of this study are presented in the form of relative differences between fire model 

predictions and experimental data for fire modeling attributes such as temperature or heat flux that 

are important to NPP fire modeling applications. These relative differences are affected by the 

capabilities of the models, the availability of accurate applicable experimental data, and the experimental uncertainty of these data. Evaluation of the two-zone models showed that the models 

simulated the experimental results within experimental uncertainty for many of the parameters of 

interest. The reason for this may be that the relatively simple experimental configurations selected 

for this study conform well to the simple two-layer assumption that is the basis of these models. 

While the relative differences sometimes show agreement for many parameters, they also show 

both under-prediction and over-prediction in some circumstances, most notably when conditions 

vary within a compartment or detailed local conditions are important to accurate prediction (for 

example, plume temperature or heat flux near to the fire source). The results and comparisons 

included the the NRC study are included in this report for the current version of CFAST. 

13
 
2.4.2 Small Compartments 

As an implementation of the zone model concept, CFAST is applicable to a wide range of scenarios. One end of this spectrum are small compartments, one to two meters on a side. Several 

research efforts have looked at small scale validation. There are three papers by Chow [52, 53, 54] 

which examine this issue. The first is the use of an electric heater with adjustable thermal power 

output was to verify temperature predictions by CFAST version 3.1. The second was closed chamber fires studied by burning four types of organic liquids, namely ethanol, N-heptane, and kerosene. 

The burning behavior of the liquids was observed, and the hot gas temperature measured. These 

behaviors along with the transient variations of the temperature were then compared with those 

predicted by the CFAST model. Finally, in another series of experiments, three zone models, one 

of which was CFAST, were evaluated experimentally using a small fire chamber. Once again, 

liquid fires were chosen for having better control on the mass loss rate. The results on the development of smoke layer and the hot gas temperature predicted by the three models were compared 

with those measured experimentally. According to Chow, ‘fairly good agreement’ was found if the 

input parameters were carefully chosen. 

2.4.3 Railway and Vehicle Tunnels 

Altinakar et al. [55] used a modified version of CFAST for predicting fire development and smoke 

propagation in vehicle or railroad tunnels. The two major modifications made to the model dealt 

with mixing between the upper and lower layers and friction losses along the tunnel. The model 

was tested by simulating several full-scale tests carried out at memorial Tunnel Ventilation Test 

Program in West Virginia, and the Offeneg Tunnel in Switzerland. His article compares simulated 

values of temperature, opacity and similar sensible quantities with measured values and discusses 

the limits of the applicability of zone models for simulating fire and smoke propagation in vehicle 

and railroad tunnels. 

Peacock et al. [56] compared times to untenable conditions determined from tests in a passenger rail car with those predicted by CFAST for the same car geometry and fire scenarios. For a 

range of fire sizes and growth rates, they found agreement that averaged approximately 13 %. 

2.4.4 Non-Uniform Compartments 

In January 1996, the U.S. Navy began testing how the CFAST model would perform when tasked 

with predicting shipboard fires. These conditions include mass transport through vertical vents 

(representing hatches and scuttles), energy transport via conduction through decks, improvement 

to the radiation transport sub-model, and geometry peculiar to combat ships. The purpose of this 

study was to identify CFAST limitations and develop methods for circumnavigating these problems 

[57]. A retired ship representing the forward half of a USS Los Angeles class submarine was used 

during this test series. Compartments in combat ships are not square in floor area, nor do they have 

parallel sides. 

Application of CFAST to these scenarios required a direct integration of compartment crosssectional area as a function of height to correctly interpret the layer interface position and provide 

correct predictions for flow through doors and windows (vertical vents). This required user specification of the area as a function of height to provide a description for the model to use. 

14
 
Chapter 3 

Verification 

The terms verification and validation are often used interchangeably to mean the process of checking the accuracy of a numerical model. For many, this entails comparing model predictions with 

experimental measurements. However, there is now a fairly broad-based consensus that comparing model and experiment is largely what is considered validation. So what is verification? 

ASTM E 1355 [1], “Standard Guide for Evaluating the Predictive Capability of Deterministic Fire 

Models,” defines verification as 

The process of determining that the implementation of a calculation method accurately 

represents the developer’s conceptual description of the calculation method and the 

solution to the calculation method. 

and it defines validation as 

The process of determining the degree to which a calculation method is an accurate 

representation of the real world from the perspective of the intended uses of the calculation method. 

Simply put, verification is a check of the math; validation is a check of the physics. If the model 

predictions closely match the results of experiments, using whatever metric is appropriate, it is 

assumed by most that the model suitably describes, via its mathematical equations, what is happening. It is also assumed that the solution of these equations must be correct. So why do we need 

to perform model verification? Why not just skip to validation and be done with it? The reason 

is that rarely do model and measurement agree so well in all applications that anyone would just 

accept its results unquestionably. Because there is inevitably differences between model and experiment, we need to know if these differences are due to limitations or errors in the numerical 

solution, or the physical sub-models, or both. 

Whereas model validation consists mainly of comparing predictions with experimental measurements, as documented later in this guide, model verification consists of a much broader range 

of activities, from checking the computer program itself, to comparing calculations to analytical 

(exact) solutions, to understanding the impact on model outputs from a range of different model 

inputs. 

A series of verification test cases follow, examining the energy balance, mass balance, ventilation, heat transfer and sprinkler effects modeled by CFAST. These test cases are routinely run 

15
 
to ensure the calculations in the model are correct for a range of simple calculations where analytical solutions exist. The energy and mass balance examples test the underlying fundamental 

equations that determine conditions within a compartment in the model. The ventilation examples 

test the flow of gases between compartments through doors, windows, holes in floors/ceilings, and 

mechanical ventilation systems. The heat transfer examples test the flow of energy through walls 

of compartments or to user-defined objects within a compartment. The sprinkler example tests the 

algorithm used to simulate the response of heat detectors and fire sprinklers in CFAST. For each of 

the examples, an analytical solution is presented and compared to the results of a matching CFAST 

simulation. 

3.1 Energy Balance 

For most of the examples presented in this section, the same basic geometry is used, a single 5 m 

by 5 m by 5 m compartment. 

3.1.1 Temperature Equilibrium via Heat Conduction 

As a simple test of the energy balance, raising the external temperature of the base case compartment from an initial condition of 20 ◦C to 25 ◦C allows the internal temperature to equilibrate to 

the exterior. From the ideal gas law, the pressure inside the compartment is expected to rise to 

Tfinal 298.15 K 

Pfinal = Pinitial = 101325 Pa × = 103027 Pa (3.1) Tinitial 293.15 K 

or a final pressure rise of 1728 Pa. Figure 3.1 shows the simulated conditions for this test, which 

are consistent with the expected results.. 

0 1 2 3 4 5

15

20

25

30

Time (h)

Temperature (

°C)

Temperature (basic_tempequilib)

ULT (Expected)

LLT (Expected)

ULT (CFAST)

LLT (CFAST)

0 1 2 3 4 5

0

500

1000

1500

2000

Time (h)

Pressure (Pa)

Pressure (basic_tempequilib)

PRS (Expected)

PRS (CFAST)

Figure 3.1: Interior temperature and pressure in equilibrium with the exterior in the case 

basic tempequilib.in. 

3.1.2 Temperature Equilibrium via a Window 

Now an open window is added to the compartment, with an exterior temperature of 25 ◦C. Figure 3.2 shows the interior conditions coming into equilibrium with the exterior, which are consis16
 
tent with the expected results..
 

0 1 2 3 4 5

15

20

25

30

Time (h)

Temperature (

°C)

Temperature (basic_tempequilib_window)

ULT (Expected)

LLT (Expected)

ULT (CFAST)

LLT (CFAST)

0 1 2 3 4 5

−1

−0.5

0

0.5

1

Time (h)

Pressure (Pa)

Pressure (basic_tempequilib_window)

PRS (Expected)

PRS (CFAST)

Figure 3.2: Interior temperature and pressure in equilibrium with the exterior in the case 

basic tempequilib window.in. 

3.1.3 Temperature Equilibrium via a Window at a High Elevation 

With the exterior temperature still set to 25 ◦C, the elevation is raised to 1500 m, approximately 

the average elevation of Idaho. Since CFAST calculations are relative to the exterior ambient, 

conditions are expected to be identical to the previous examples and equilibrate to those of the 

exterior. Figure 3.3 shows the simulated conditions for the test case, which are consistent with the 

expected results.. 

0 1 2 3 4 5

15

20

25

30

Time (h)

Temperature (

°C)

Temperature (basic_tempequilib_window_elevation)

ULT (Expected)

LLT (Expected)

ULT (CFAST)

LLT (CFAST)

0 1 2 3 4 5

−1

−0.5

0

0.5

1

Time (h)

Pressure (Pa)

Pressure (basic_tempequilib_window_elevation)

PRS (Expected)

PRS (CFAST)

Figure 3.3: Interior temperature and pressure in equilibrium with the exterior in the case 

basic tempequilib window elevation.in. 

17
 
3.2 Mass Balance 

3.2.1 A Fire in a Single, Sealed Compartment 

A methane fire burns in a sealed compartment of dimension 5 m by 6 m by 3 m. The heat release 

rate ramps up linearly to 1 kW in 30 s, then remains steady for 5 min, and then ramps down linearly 

to 0 in 30 s. The total energy released is 330 kJ, and the total mass of fuel consumed is 

330 kJ = 0.00660 kg (3.2) 50000 kJ/kg 

where the heat of combustion of methane is taken to be 50 000 kJ/kg. For complete combustion of 

methane, the combustion chemistry is given by 

CH4 +2O2 → CO2 +2H2O (3.3) 

The molecular weight of CH4 is 16 g/mol and CO2 is 44 g/mol; thus, the total mass of CO2 

produced by the fire is 

44 g/mol 

mCO2 = 0.0066 kg × = 0.01815 kg (3.4) 16 g/mol 

The molecular weight of H2O is 18 g/mol; thus, the total mass of H2O produced by the fire is 

2(18) g/mol 

mH2O = 0.0066 kg × = 0.01485 kg (3.5) 16 g/mol 

CFAST predicts that the final mole fractions of O2, CO2 and H2O in the upper layer are 0.2069, 

0.00012 and 0.00024, respectively (calculated by the model consistent with eq. 3.3; see [58] for 

details of the combustion chemistry calculations in CFAST). The remainder is N2, whose mole 

fraction is 0.7927. These mole fractions can be converted to mass fractions by 

Yk = XkMk 

∑N 

i=1 XiMi 

(3.6) 

The mass of the upper layer can be calculated from the equation of state: 

mu = PV 

R T ; R = γ−1 γ

cp ≈ 289.14 J 

kg ·K (3.7) 

The mass of CO2 and H2O produced is given by 

mk = mu Yk (3.8) 

Figure 3.4 shows the resulting product masses, which are consistent with the expected results.
 

18
 
0 5 10 15

0

0.005

0.01

0.015

0.02

Time (min)

Mass (kg)

Mass of Products (species_mass_1)

CO2 (Expected)

H2O (Expected)

CO2 (CFAST)

H2O (CFAST)

Figure 3.4: Expected and predicted masses of CO2 and H2O for the case species mass 1.in. 

3.2.2 A Fire in a Compartment Connected to Another via a Door 

The same natural gas fire described in Section 3.2.1 burns in a compartment of dimension 2 m 

by 5 m by 8 m which is connected to another compartment of dimension 5 m by 3 m by 8 m. A 

doorway connects the compartments, which has a width of 1 m and a height of 6 m. Because the 

fire and the fuel source have not changed, the theoretical calculations for the mass of CO2 and H2O 

produced will remain the same. The remaining portion of the problem is approached in the same 

manner, but since there are two compartments, the mass of CO2 and H2O produced in each layer 

of each compartment must be individually calculated and then summed together to produce the net 

yields of CO2 and H2O. Figure 3.5 shows the resulting product masses, which are consistent with 

the expected results. 

0 5 10 15

0

0.005

0.01

0.015

0.02

Time (min)

Mass (kg)

Mass of Products (species_mass_2)

CO2 (Expected)

H2O (Expected)

CO2 (CFAST)

H2O (CFAST)

Figure 3.5: Expected and predicted masses of CO2 and H2O for the case species mass 2.in. 

3.2.3 A Fire in a Compartment Connected to Another via a Ceiling Vent 

The same natural gas fire described in Section 3.2.1 burns in a compartment of dimension 9 m by 

5 m by 4 m which is connected to another compartment of dimension 9 m by 5 m by 2 m. The 

compartments are placed such that the second one is located directly above the first one. There 

is a square ceiling vent between the compartments that has an area of 4 m2. This problem is 

19
 
approached in the same exact manner as in Section 3.2.2 because the only difference between the 

two scenarios is the specific alignment of the compartments. Figure 3.5 shows the resulting product 

masses, which are consistent with the expected results. 

0 5 10 15

0

0.005

0.01

0.015

0.02

Time (min)

Mass (kg)

Mass of Products (species_mass_3)

CO2 (Expected)

H2O (Expected)

CO2 (CFAST)

H2O (CFAST)

Figure 3.6: Expected and predicted masses of CO2 and H2O for the case species mass 3.in. 

3.2.4 A Fire in a Four Compartment Assembly 

Four 4 m by 4 m by 4 m compartments are arranged such that two compartments are placed 

adjacent to one another and the following two compartments are placed directly on top of the first 

two. The same natural gas fire described in Section 3.2.1 burns in the first compartment of this 

setup. After 2500 s, the wall between compartments one and two is removed, forcing the gases in 

the two rooms to mix. Next, at 5000 s, the wall between compartments three and four is removed. 

Lastly, at 7500 s, the ceiling of compartment four is removed, allowing the system to slowly return 

to ambient conditions. Figure 3.7 and Figure 3.8 show how the masses of CO2 and H2O in each 

compartment change with respect to time. Figure 3.9 shows that the expected temperature and 

pressure values of compartment one are consistent with the values produced by CFAST. 

0 50 100 150

0

0.005

0.01

0.015

0.02

Time (min)

Mass (kg)

Mass of Products in Compartment 1 (species_mass_4)

CO2 (Expected)

H2O (Expected)

CO2 (CFAST)

H2O (CFAST)

0 50 100 150

0

0.005

0.01

0.015

0.02

Time (min)

Mass (kg)

Mass of Products in Compartment 2 (species_mass_4)

CO2 (Expected)

H2O (Expected)

CO2 (CFAST)

H2O (CFAST)

Figure 3.7: Expected and CFAST calculated values for the masses of CO2 and H2O in compartments one and two for case species mass 4.in. 

20
 
0 50 100 150

0

0.005

0.01

0.015

0.02

Time (min)

Mass (kg)

Mass of Products in Compartment 3 (species_mass_4)

CO2 (Expected)

H2O (Expected)

CO2 (CFAST)

H2O (CFAST)

0 50 100 150

0

0.005

0.01

0.015

0.02

Time (min)

Mass (kg)

Mass of Products in Compartment 4 (species_mass_4)

CO2 (Expected)

H2O (Expected)

CO2 (CFAST)

H2O (CFAST)

Figure 3.8: Expected and CFAST calculated values for the masses of CO2 and H2O in compartments three and four for case species mass 4.in. 

0 50 100 150

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Temperature in Compartment 1 (species_mass_4)

ULT_1 (Expected)

ULT_1 (CFAST)

0 50 100 150

−2

−1

0

1

2

3

4

Time (min)

Pressure (kPa)

Pressure in Compartment 1 (species_mass_4)

PRS_1 (Expected)

PRS_1 (CFAST)

Figure 3.9: Expected and CFAST calculated values for pressure and temperature of the first compartment for the case species mass 4.in. 

21
 
3.3 Energy Balance 

3.3.1 A Fire in a Single, Sealed Compartment with a Single Zone 

A 100 kW methane fire burns in a sealed compartment with no ventilation, adiabatic walls, and no 

radiative emission. A single zone simulation is run in which it is assumed that the entire volume is 

taken up by the upper layer. The governing equation for the pressure and temperature of the single 

zone compartment are: 

dP γ−1 = h ̇ ; h ̇ = Q ̇ +cp m ̇f T∞ (3.9) dt V 

dT 

dt = 1 cp m

 

h  ̇ −cp m ̇f T +V 

dP 

dt

 

(3.10) 

where  ̇mf is the fuel flow rate and m is the total mass. Figure 3.10 includes comparisons of the 

temperature and pressure as predicted by CFAST and a simple second-order accurate ODE solver 

of the equations above. 

0 5 10 15

0

200

400

600

800

1000

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Temperature (sealed_test)

ULT (Expected)

ULT (CFAST)

0 5 10 15

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Time (min)

Pressure (kPa)

Pressure (sealed_test)

PRS (Expected)

PRS (CFAST)

Figure 3.10: Temperature and pressure rise due to a fire in a closed compartment. The case is 

called sealed test.in. 

3.3.2 A Fire in a Single, Sealed Compartment with Two Zones 

Consider now the same case as in Section 3.3.1, but now with two zones rather than one. The 

compartment pressure ought to be the same as before, and the upper layer temperature ought to 

converge to the single layer temperature as seen in Fig. 3.11. 

22
 
0 5 10 15

0

200

400

600

800

1000

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Temperature (sealed_test_2_layers)

ULT (Expected)

ULT (CFAST)

0 5 10 15

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Time (min)

Pressure (kPa)

Pressure (sealed_test_2_layers)

PRS (Expected)

PRS (CFAST)

Figure 3.11: Hot gas layer temperature and pressure rise due to a fire in a closed compartment with 

two zones. The case is called sealed test 2 layers.in. 

23
 
 

3.4 Ventilation 

3.4.1 Pressure Change as Air Flows Through a Single Compartment 

The setup for this test case includes a 5 m by 5 m by 3 m compartment that contains a mechanical 

vent and a wall vent. Air is pumped into a single compartment through a 1 m by 1 m mechanical 

vent, at a rate of 0.01 m3/s. The air is allowed to exit the compartment through a 1 cm by 1 cm 

vent located on the opposite side of the compartment. The governing equation for the change in 

pressure in the compartment is [59]: 

ΔP = 1 

2ρ

m  ̇

CA 

2 

(3.11) 

where ρ ,  ̇m and C are consistent with CFAST calculations 

ρ = P 

RT ; m  ̇ = ρ∞V  ̇ ; C = 0.70 (3.12) 

Figure 3.12 shows how the pressure changes as air flows through the compartment. 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

5

10

15

Time (h)

Pressure (kPa)

Pressure (ventilation_1)

PRS (Expected)

PRS (CFAST)

Figure 3.12: Expected and CFAST calculated values for pressure of the compartment for the case 

ventilation 1.in. 

3.4.2 Temperature and Pressure Changes of Steady-State Air Flow 

A similar setup to the one used in Section 3.2.4 is employed here. A fan blows air into the first 

compartment, on the ground floor, at a rate of 1 m3/s and then continues to the second compartment 

after passing through a doorway. The air then travels to the third compartment by passing through a 

ceiling vent with an area of 3 m2 and continues to compartment four through another doorway. Air 

is finally extracted from compartment four at a rate of 1 m3/s. Figure 3.13 shows how temperature 

and pressure change as the air flows through the fourth compartment. 

3.4.3 Temperature and Pressure Changes of Non Steady-State Air Flow 

The same setup that was constructed in Section 3.4.2 is used again in this scenario. All vents 

and fans are the same as in the previous case, except the fan in the fourth compartment has been 

24
 
0 2 4 6 8 10

19.999

19.9995

20

20.0005

20.001

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Temperature in Compartment 4 (ventilation_2)

ULT_4 (Expected)

ULT_4 (CFAST)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

−0.5

0

0.5

Time (min)

Pressure (Pa)

Pressure in Compartment 4 (ventilation_2)

PRS_4 (Expected)

PRS_4 (CFAST)

Figure 3.13: Expected and CFAST calculated values for pressure and temperature of the fourth 

compartment for the case ventilation 2.in. 

converted to a round ceiling vent with an area of 4 m2. Initially, all of the vents are closed and air is 

pumped into the first compartment at a rate of 1 m3/s, for a period of 15 s. After 15 s pass, the fan 

is shut off. Then, at 200 s, the door between compartments one and two opens completely. Next, at 

500 s, the vent between compartments two and three opens completely. At 700 s, the door between 

compartments three and four opens completely. Finally, at 1000 s, the ceiling vent in compartment 

four opens completely. Figure 3.14 shows how temperature and pressure change as the air flows 

through the first compartment. 

0 5 10 15 20 25

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Temperature in Compartment 1 (ventilation_3)

ULT_1 (Expected)

ULT_1 (CFAST)

0 5 10 15 20 25

−20

0

20

40

60

Time (min)

Pressure (kPa)

Pressure in Compartment 1 (ventilation_3)

PRS_1 (Expected)

PRS_1 (CFAST)

Figure 3.14: Expected and CFAST calculated values for pressure and temperature of the first 

compartment for the case ventilation 3.in. 

3.4.4 Determining the Velocity Profile of Air Flowing Through a Doorway 

A 200 kW natural gas (methane) fire burns in a 5 m by 5 m by 5 m compartment, where the walls 

are assumed to be adiabatic. The heat release rate ramps up linearly to 200 kW in 30 s, then remains 

steady for 5.5 min. The compartment contains a 4 m by 1.5 m door that remains completely open 

throughout the simulation. The mass flow though each vertical segment of the doorway is given 

25
 
 

by: 

 t 

 m ̇ = C 2ρΔP(z)w dz (3.13)

b 

where C is the orifice coefficient taken to be 0.7, ρ is the gas density of the upwind compartment, 

w is the width of the doorway and ΔP(z) is the pressure across the interface at elevation z. Finally, 

z = b and z = t refer to the heights of the bottom and top of the vertical segment in the doorway 

through which the mass flow rate is being calculated. This equation can be analytically integrated 

to yield: 

ΔPt +ΔPb 2 |ΔPt |

3/2 −|ΔPb|3/2 

m ̇ = sign C 2ρw(t −b) (3.14) 2 3 |ΔPt | −|ΔPb|

The equation for the velocity profile of air traveling through the doorway can be produced after 

rearranging equation 3.13: 

 

m ̇ 2|ΔP(z)| v(z) = = sign(ΔP(z))C (3.15) δAρ ρ

where δA represents the infinitesimal area of the door segment and ρ corresponds to the density 

of air at height z. Figure 3.15 shows how the velocity of air flowing through the doorway changes 

from the floor to the top of the doorway. 

−2 0 2 4 6 8

0

1

2

3

4

5

Velocity (m/s)

Position (m)

Velocity Profile through Doorway (ventilation_4)

Figure 3.15: CFAST calculated velocity profile of air traveling through the doorway in test case 

ventilation 4.in. 

3.5 Heat Transfer 

3.5.1 Measuring the Temperature Change of a Thermally Thin Target 

A constant 10 kW natural gas (methane) fire burns in the center of a 15 m by 15 m by 15 m 

compartment. Because the purpose of this case is to test the point source radiation model and 

the heating of a thermally-thin target, there is a 20 m2 vent located in the center of the ceiling to 

exhaust the smoke from the fire and maintain an ambient temperature lower layer. A 1.5 mm thick 

sheet of plain carbon steel is placed 2 m to the right of the fire. It is oriented directly at the fire. The 

26
 
target is heated by the thermal radiation from the fire, and it is cooled via convective and radiative 

loss. The net radiative heat transfer to the target is given by: 

χr Q ̇ q ̇

ii = ε

4πr2 +2εσ(T 4 −T 4) (3.16) r g s 

where ε is the emissivity of the target, χr represents the radiative heat fraction of the fire, Q ̇ is 

the heat release rate of the fire, r is the distance between the fire and the target and σ is the 

Stefan-Boltzmann constant, which has a value of 5.67 × 10−11 kW/(m2·K4). Additionally, Tg is 

the temperature of the gas surrounding the target and Ts is the temperature of the target’s surface. 

The convective heat flux to a solid surface is governed by the following equations: 

q ̇

ii = h(Tg −Ts) ; h = C|Tg −Ts|1/3 (3.17) c 

where h is the convective heat transfer coefficient and C is an empirical coefficient determined to 

be 1.31 for vertical targets [60]. In order to determine what the temperature of the target’s surface 

will be at any given time, the following equation must be integrated [61]: 

q ̇

ii qii dT +2  ̇ r c = (3.18) dt δ ρCp 

where δ, ρ and Cp are the thickness, density and specific heat capacity of the target. The 2 denotes 

that both sides of the target cool via convection. Figure 3.16 shows how the surface temperature of 

the target changes as the fire burns in the compartment. 

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Target Surface Temperature (radiation_1)

Plate Temp (Expected)

Plate Temp (CFAST)

Figure 3.16: Expected and CFAST calculated target surface temperature values for the case 

radiation 1.in. 

3.5.2 Measuring the Temperature Change of a Cylindrical Target 

A 0.15 cm thick steel plate, a 2.5 cm thick steel plate and a 2.5 cm diameter steel rod are placed 

in a furnace1 with uniform temperature of 500 ◦C. The heat conduction equations normal to the 

1CFAST has an option to create a uniform temperature environment for diagnostic purposes. The option must be 

invoked by adding a special comment to the input file. 

27
 
 

surface of each plate and the rod, respectively, are:
 

∂T k ∂2T ∂T k 1 ∂ ∂T = ; = r (3.19) ∂t ρc ∂x2 ∂t ρc r ∂r ∂r 

where k, ρ and c are the thermal conductivity, density and specific heat capacity of the target. At 

the surface of each plate and the rod, the respective boundary conditions are: 

ii ∂T ii ∂T

q ̇ = −k ; q ̇ = k (3.20) ∂x ∂r 

where  ̇qii is the sum of the net radiative and convective heat fluxes: 

 ii ii

q ̇r = εσ Tg

4 −Ts4 ; q ̇c = h Tg −Ts ; h = C|Tg −Ts|

1/3 (3.21) 

where ε is the emissivity of the target (taken here to be 1), σ is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant, Tg 

is the temperature of the gas surrounding the target, Ts is the temperature of the target’s surface, h 

is the convective heat transfer coefficient, and C is 1.31 for vertical targets. Figure 3.17 shows how 

the surface temperature for each of the plates and the rod increases with respect to time. 

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Target Surface Temperature (radiation_2)

Rod (Expected)

Thick Plate (Expected)

Thin Plate (Expected)

Rod (CFAST)

Thick Plate (CFAST)

Thin Plate (CFAST)

Figure 3.17: Expected and CFAST calculated surface temperature values for three different types 

of targets for the case radiation 2.in. 

3.6 Sprinklers 

3.6.1 Utilizing a Sprinkler to Detect and Suppress a Fire 

A constant 10 kW natural gas (methane) fire burns in the center of a 4 m by 4 m by 4 m compartment. The compartment is sealed and a sprinkler is located at the center of the ceiling, with an 

activation temperature of 40 ◦C and a spray density of 0.07 mm/s. The sprinkler link temperature 

can be calculated by integrating the following equation [62]: 

√ dTL v = Tg −TL (3.22) dt RTI

28
 
where TL and Tg are the link and gas temperatures, v is the gas speed, and RTI (Response Time 

Index) is a measure of the sensor’s thermal inertia. After the sprinkler link temperature reaches the 

activation temperature, t > tact, the sprinkler will begin to suppress the fire by diminishing its heat 

release rate at the exponential rate described by [63]: 

 ̇ −(t−tact)/τ −1.8 Q(t) = Q ̇(tact) e ; τ = 3 uw (3.23) 

where uw is the water spray density, expressed in units of mm/s. Figure 3.18 shows the sprinkler 

link temperature rising as the fire burns in the compartment and the heat release rate decreasing 

exponentially once the sprinkler has been activated. 

0 20 40 60 80

0

50

100

150

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Sprinkler Link Temperature (sprinkler_1)

T

L

 (Expected)

T

L

 (CFAST)

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

Time (min)

Heat Release Rate (W)

Fire Suppression (sprinkler_1)

HRR (Expected)

HRR (CFAST)

Figure 3.18: Expected and CFAST calculated values for the sprinkler link temperature and the heat 

release rate of the fire for the case sprinkler 1.in. 

3.7 Summary of Verification Results 

The tests included in this chapter test the energy and mass balance equations in CFAST and various 

heat transfer (through walls, targets, and fire detectors/sprinklers) and mass transfer (flow through 

vents) calculations included in the model with comparisons to analytical calculations. These comparisons are an integral part of a process known as regression testing, which aims to evaluate the 

accuracy of outputs predicted by a numerical software package. The results from this chapter can 

be compared to another version of CFAST as a way of measuring the quality of results between 

versions. These results also help determine the impact of code additions and modifications on the 

overall accuracy of CFAST and can help identify errors in the CFAST source code. Appendix B 

presents the results of the verification tests for the current version of CFAST. 

29
 
30
 
Chapter 4 

Description of Validation Experiments 

This chapter summarizes the range of experiments used in the current evaluation of the CFAST 

model. Much of the content follows the FDS Validation Guide [64] and the verification and validation guide for nuclear power plants developed by the US NRC [51]. This study focused on the 

predicted results of the CFAST fire model and did not include an assessment of the user interface 

for the model. However, all input files used for the simulations were prepared using the CFAST 

graphical user interface (GUI) and reviewed for correctness prior to the simulations. The comparisons between the experiments and model predictions were characterized as open calculations, 

i.e., the modelers were given detailed descriptions of the test conditions, test geometry, and fire 

source, but did not modify model inputs from these given conditions to improve model predictions. As such, the comparisons in this report provide an assessment of the predictive capability of 

the model, but not an assessment of the ability of different modelers to develop appropriate model 

inputs. 

Experiments were chosen for inclusion based on several criteria: 1) Are the experiments welldocumented in publicly-available publications in terms of physical parameters such as compartment geometry, ventilation, and fire characteristics? 2) Is the experimental data publicly available? 

3) Do the experiments extend the range of one or more of the test parameters described below 

to broaden the scope of the validation? Table 4.1 presents a summary of all the experiments described in this chapter in terms of parameters commonly used in fire protection engineering. This 

“parameter space” outlines the range of applicability of the validation studies performed to date. 

In other words, if this guide is to be cited as justification for using CFAST to simulate a given 

fire scenario, that scenario must be similar to these experiments in the sense of having comparable 

physical parameters. These parameters are explained below: 

31
 
 

Heat Release Rate, Q ̇, is the range of peak heat release rates of the fires in the test series. 

Fire Diameter, D, is the equivalent diameter of the base of the fire, D = 4A/π, where A is the 

area of the base. 

Ceiling Height, H, is the distance from floor to ceiling. 

Fire Froude Number, Q ̇∗, is a useful non-dimensional quantity for plume correlations and flame 

height estimates. 

Q ̇ Q ̇∗ = √ (4.1)

ρ∞cpT∞ gDD2 

It is essentially the ratio of the fuel gas exit velocity and the buoyancy-induced plume velocity. Jet fires are characterized by large Froude numbers. Typical accidental fires have a 

Froude number near unity. 

Flame Height relative to Ceiling Height, Lf/H, is a convenient way to express the physical size 

of the fire relative to the size of the room. The height of the visible flame, based on Heskestad’s correlation, is estimated by: 

 

Lf = D 3.7(Q ̇ ∗)

2/5 −1.02 (4.2) 

Global Equivalence Ratio, φ, is the ratio of the mass flux of fuel to the mass flux of oxygen into 

the compartment, divided by the stoichiometric ratio. 

 1 √ m ̇f Q ̇ (kW) 2 0.23A0 H0 : Natural Ventilation φ = ≡ ; m ̇ O2 = r m ̇ O2 13,100 (kJ/kg)  ̇mO2 0.23ρV ̇ : Mechanical Ventilation 

(4.3) 

Here, r is the stoichiometric ratio, A0 is the area of the compartment opening, H0 is the height 

of the opening, ρ is the density of air, and V ̇ is the volume flow of air into the compartment. 

If φ < 1, the compartment is considered “well-ventilated” and if φ > 1, the compartment is 

considered “under-ventilated.” 

Compartment Aspect Ratios, W /H and L/H, indicate if the compartment is shaped like a hallway, typical room, or vertical shaft. 

Relative Distance along the Ceiling, rcj/H, indicates the distance from the fire plume of a sprinkler, smoke detector, etc., relative to the compartment height, H. 

Relative Distance from the Fire, rrad/D, indicates whether a “target” is near or far from the fire. 
33
 

Table 4.1: Summary of important experimental parameters.


Test Series 

 ̇

Q

(kW) 

D

(m) 

H

(m) 

 ̇

Q ∗ L f /H φ W /H L/H r cj /H r rad/D 

ATF Corridors 50 – 500 0.5 2.4 0.3 – 3.3 0.3 – 0.9 0.0 – 0.1 0.8 7.1 0.8 – 6.0 

Fleury Heat Flux 100 – 300 0.3 – 0.6 Open 0.3 – 5.5 Open Open Open Open Open 1.7 – 3.3 

FM/SNL 470 – 516 0.9 6.1 0.6 – 2.4 0.3 – 0.6 0.0 – 0.2 2.0 3.0 0.2 – 0.3 

iBMB* 3500, 400 1.13, 0.79 5.7, 5.6 2.4, 0.7 0.6, 0.4 0.6, 0.1 0.6 0.6 

LLNL Enclosure 50 – 400 0.6 4.5 0.2 – 1.5 0.1 – 0.4 0.1 – 0.4 0.9 1.3 0.3 – 1.0 

NBS Multi-Room 110 0.3 2.4 1.5 0.5 1.0 5.1 

NBS Single-Compartment 2900 – 7000 1.1 – 1.7 2.4 1.7 – 2.3 1.1 1.0 1.5 

NIST/NRC 350 – 2200 1.0 3.8 0.3 – 2.0 0.3 – 1.0 0.0 – 0.3 1.9 5.7 0.3 – 2.1 2.0 – 4.0 

NIST Smoke Alarm 100 – 350 1.0 2.4 0.1 – 0.3 0.2 – 0.5 1.7 8.3 1.3 – 8.3 

PRISME 480 – 1600 0.7 – 1.1 4.0 1.1 0.5 – 0.8 0.5 1.3 1.5 0.0 – 0.5 2.3 – 5.7 

SP AST 450 0.3 2.4 6.1 1.1 0.1 1.0 1.5 

Steckler 31.6 – 158 0.3 2.1 0.8 – 3.8 0.3 – 0.7 0.0 – 0.6 1.3 1.3 

UL/NFPRF 4400 – 10000 1.0 7.6 4.0 – 9.1 0.7 – 1.0 Open 4.9 4.9 0.6 – 3.9 

UL/NIST Vents 500 – 2000 0.9 2.4 0.7 – 2.6 0.8 – 1.6 0.2 – 0.6 1.8 2.5 1.0 – 2.3 

USN Hawaii 100 – 7700 0.3 – 2.5 15 0.7 – 1.3 0.1 – 0.4 Open 4.9 6.5 0 – 1.2 

USN Iceland 100 – 15700 0.3 – 3.4 22 0.7 – 1.3 0.0 – 0.3 Open 2.1 3.4 0 – 1.0 

Vettori Flat 1055 0.7 2.6 2.5 1.1 0.3 2.1 3.5 0.8 – 2.9 

VTT Large Hall 1860 – 3640 1.4 – 1.8 19 0.7 0.2 0 1.0 1.4 0 – 0.6 

WTC 1970 – 3240 1.6 3.8 0.6 – 0.9 0.8 – 1.1 0.3 – 0.5 0.9 1.8 0.0 – 0.8 0.3 – 1.3 

Where two values are present, the first is for the test from iBMB test #4 and the second is from iBMB test #5.
 * 
4.1 ATF Corridors Experiments 

A series of eighteen experiments were conducted in a two-story structure with long hallways and 

a connecting stairway in the large burn room of the ATF Fire Research Laboratory in Ammendale, 

Maryland, in 2008 [65]. The test enclosure consisted of two 17.0 m long hallways connected by a 

stairway consisting of two staircases and an intermediary landing. There was a door at the opposite 

end of the first floor hallway, which was closed during all tests. The end of the second floor hallway 

was open with a soffit near the ceiling. 

The walls and ceilings of the test structure were constructed of 1.2 cm gypsum wallboard. The 

flooring throughout the structure, including the stairwell landing floor, consisted of one layer of 

1.3 cm thick cement board on one layer of 1.9 cm thick plywood supported by wood joists. The 

first set of stairs, which had eight risers, led from the first floor up to the landing area. The second 

set of stairs, which had nine risers, led from the landing area up to the second floor. The stairs 

were constructed of 2.5 cm thick clear pine lumber. The two set of stairs were separated by an 

approximately 0.42 m wide gap in the middle of the stairwell. This gap was separated from the 

stairs by a 0.91 m tall barrier constructed of a single piece of gypsum board. The flue space was 

open to the first floor. The flue space was separated from the second floor by a 0.9 m tall barrier 

constructed of gypsum board. There was a metal exterior type door at the end of the first floor near 

the burner. The door was closed during all experiments. 

The fire source was a natural gas diffusion flame burner. The burner surface was horizontal, 

square and 0.45 m on each side, its surface was 0.37 m above the floor, and it was filled with gravel. 

The burner was located near the end of the first floor away from the stairs. A diagram of the test 

structure is displayed in Figure 4.1. 

4.2 Fleury Heat Flux Measurements 

Rob Fleury, a masters degree student at the University of Canterbury in Christchurch, New Zealand, 

measured the heat flux from a variety of propane fires [66]. The objective of the work was to evaluate a variety of empirical heat flux calculation methods. For the measurements, heat flux gauges 

were mounted on moveable dollies that were placed in front of, and to the side of, burners with 

dimensions of 0.3 m by 0.3 m (1:1 burner), 0.6 m by 0.3 m (2:1 burner), and 0.9 m by 0.3 m (3:1 

burner). The heat release rates were set to 100 kW, 150 kW, 200 kW, 250 kW, and 300 kW. The 

gauges were mounted at heights of 0 m, 0.5 m, 1.0 m, and 1.5 m relative to the top edge of the 

burner. 

4.3 FM Four Room Including Corridor Test Series 

This data set describes a series of tests conducted in a multiple room configuration with more 

complex gas burner fires than the previous data set. This study [67] was included because, in many 

ways, it is similar to the smoke movement study performed at NBS [68], and permits comparisons 

between two different laboratories. In addition, it expands upon that data set by providing larger 

a time-varying gas burner fires in a room-corridor configuration. Fire size was about up to 1 MW 

with a total volume of 200 m3. 

34
 
This study was performed to collect data allowing for variations in fire source, ventilation, and 

geometry in a multi-compartment structure, especially for situations with closed doors. This test 

program was carried out at Factory Mutual Research Corporation (FMRC) in West Glocester, RI, 

in which 60 fire experiments were conducted in a multiple-room enclosure to furnish validation 

data for theoretical fire models. 

Figure 4.2 shows a diagram of the basic facility with indications of instrumentation location. 

The facility was built on the floor of FMRC’s fire test building, using part of the 67 m by 76 m test 

building where the ceiling height is 18.3 m. The layout in figure 25 shows a burn room and two 

target rooms connected to a corridor. The corridor was 2.43 m wide x 18.89 m long x 2.43 m high. 

The burn room measured 3.63 m deep x 3.64 m wide x 2.45 m high; a sealable window opening, 

measuring 0.85 m square, was centered on the rear wall, 0.34 m down from the top, and a door, 

measuring 0.92 m by 2.05 m high, was centered on the front wall (opening to the corridor). For 

closed window experiments, the wood-framed calcium silicate board window cover was pressed 

against a bead of caulking around the steel window frame and held by drop bars positioned into 

slots on the outside wall. 

Room 3, located opposite the burn room, measured 3.65 m deep x 3.64 m wide x 2.45 m high; 

a door, measuring 0.88 m by 2.02 m high, was centered on the front wall (opening to the corridor). 

Room 4, located at the opposite end of the corridor, measured 3.65 m deep x 3.65 m wide x 2.43 m 

high and had a 0.88 m by 2.02 m high door centered on the front wall (opening to the corridor); an 

observation alcove, measuring 1.28 m by 0.86 m by 1.99 m high, was located in the front corner of 

room 4. Each room was equipped with a 102 mm inside diameter vent tube with a 61 mm inside 

diameter orifice meter and thermocouple, with option of exhaust fan (tube centered 0.27 m from 

the floor and 0.17 m from the closest parallel wall). An inlet vent (0.29 m2) used with exhaust fans 

was centered 0.43 m above the floor at the end of the corridor between the burn room and room 3. 

When not in use, the inlet vent was sealed with a gypsum board cover taped in place. 

The target room doors were commercial fire doors (wood-faced composite doors with calcium 

silicate cores, 14 h rated) mounted on 16 gage steel frames. The burn room door was fabricated 

from 12.7 mm calcium silicate, mounted in a steel frame lined with calcium silicate. Details of the 

doors and the spacings (cracks) are given in the original reference [67]. 

Gypsum wallboard, 12.7 mm thick, on wood studs was used throughout the experimental facility. In addition, the walls and ceiling of the burn room were overlaid with calcium silicate, also 

12.7 mm thick, to harden against repeated fire exposure. The existing concrete floor of the test 

building was used. 

Two types of fire sources were used: 1) steady propylene fires at 56 kW on a 0.30 m diameter 

sand burner and 522 kW on a 0.91 m diameter burner and 2) propylene fires on the 0.91 m diameter 

burner programmed under computer control to grow with the square of time, exceeding 1 MW in 

1, 2, 4, or 8 min. 

The 0.91 m diameter, 0.58 in high propylene burner was used for most of the tests. Its design 

consisted of a 12 gage steel container with a gas distributor near the bottom, filled with gravel to 

a 67 percent height, where there was wire mesh screen, and coarse sand to the full height of the 

burner. The 0.30 m diameter burner was a scaled-down version of similar design. 

35
 
4.4 FM / SNL Test Series 

The Factory Mutual and Sandia National Laboratories (FM/SNL) test series consists of 25 compartment fire experiments conducted in 1985 for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) 

by Factory Mutual Research Corporation (FMRC), under the direction of Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) [69, 70]. The primary purpose of these experiments was to provide data with which 

to validate computer models for various types of compartments typical of nuclear power plants. 

The experiments were conducted in an enclosure measuring approximately 18 m long by 12 m 

wide by 6 m high, constructed at the FMRC fire test facility in Rhode Island. A drawing is included in Fig. 4.3. All of the experiments included forced ventilation to simulate typical power 

plant conditions. Six of the experiments were conducted with a full-scale control room mock-up 

in place. Parameters varied during the experiments included fire intensity, enclosure ventilation 

rate, and fire location. Only data from nineteen experiments (Tests 1-17, 21, and 22) is used in the 

current study. In these experiments, the fires were fueled by a propylene gas burner, and heptane 

and methanol liquid pools. In the experiments not selected, the heat release was not reported and 

could not be estimated with confidence. Table 4.2 lists the test parameters. 

The following information was provided by the test director, Steve Nowlen of Sandia National 

Laboratory. In particular, Tests 4, 5, and 21 were given extra attention. 

Heat Release Rate: The HRR was determined using oxygen consumption calorimetry in the exhaust stack with a correction applied for the carbon dioxide in the upper layer of the compartment. The uncertainty of the fuel mass flow was not documented. Several tests selected 

for this study had the same target peak heat release rate of 516 kW following a 4 min “tsquared” growth profile. The test report contains time histories of the measured HRR, for 

which the average, sustained HRR following the ramp up for Tests 4, 5, and 21 have been 

estimated as 510 kW, 480 kW, and 470 kW, respectively. Once reached, the peak HRR was 

maintained essentially constant during a steady-burn period of 6 min in Tests 4 and 5, and 

16 min in Test 21. Note that in Test 21, Nowlen reports a “significant” loss of effluent from 

the exhaust hood that could lead to an under-estimate of the HRR towards the end of the 

experiment. 

Radiative Fraction: The radiative fraction was not measured during the experiment, but in this 

study it is assumed to equal 0.35, which is typical for a smoky hydrocarbons. It was further 

assumed that the radiative fraction was about the same in Test 21 as the other tests, as fuel 

burning must have occurred outside of the electrical cabinet in which the burner was placed. 

Measurements: Four types of measurements were conducted during the FM/SNL test series that 

are used in the current model evaluation study, including the HGL temperature and depth, 

and the ceiling jet and plume temperatures. Aspirated thermocouples (TCs) were used to 

make all of the temperature measurements. Generally, aspirated TC measurements are 

preferable to bare-bead TC measurements, as systematic radiative exchange measurement 

error is reduced. 

HGL Depth and Temperature: Data from all of the vertical TC trees were used when reducing 

the HGL height and temperature. For the majority of the tests, Sectors 1, 2, and 3 were used, 

all weighted evenly. For Tests 21 and 22, Sectors 1 and 3 were used, evenly weighted. Sector 

2 was partially within the fire plume. 

36
 
Table 4.2: Summary of FM/SNL Experiments. ACH stands for Air Changes per Hour.
 

Test 

No. 

Fuel 

Type 

Nominal Peak 

HRR (kW) 

Fire 

Position 

Ventilation 

Rate (ACH) 

Room 

Configuration 

1 Propylene Burner 516 Center 10 Empty 

2 Propylene Burner 516 Center 10 Empty 

3 Propylene Burner 2000 Center 10 Empty 

4 Propylene Burner 516 Center 1 Empty 

5 Propylene Burner 516 Center 10 Empty 

6 Heptane Pool 500 Wall 1 Empty 

7 Propylene Burner 516 Center 1 Empty 

8 Propylene Burner 1000 Center 1 Empty 

9 Propylene Burner 1000 Center 8 Empty 

10 Heptane Pool 1000 Wall 4.4 Empty 

11 Methanol Pool 500 Wall 4.4 Empty 

12 Heptane Pool 2000 Wall 4.4 Empty 

13 Heptane Pool 2000 Wall 8 Empty 

14 Methanol Pool 500 Wall 1 Empty 

15 Heptane Pool 1000 Wall 1 Empty 

16 Heptane Pool 500 Corner 1 Empty 

17 Heptane Pool 500 Corner 10 Empty 

21 Propylene Burner 500 Cabinet 1 Furnished 

22 Propylene Burner 1000 Cabinet 1 Furnished 

37
 
Figure 4.1: Geometry of the ATF Corridors Experiments.
 

38
 
TGS

TGS

TT SS TT GS S

TT GS S

TT SS

V

V

V

IV

T

T

G

S

V

IV

S

Fire source, gas burner

Gas temperature array

Surface temperature (ceiling)

Gas concentration

Smoke obscuration

Differential pressure array

Vent tube (102 mm ID) fan

Inlet vent used with exhaust fans (0.27 m ) 2

Figure 4.2: Overview of the Factory Mutual Four Room test series.
 

39
 
Figure 4.3: Geometry of the FM/SNL Experiments.
 

40
 
4.5 iBMB Compartment Tests 

A series of small compartment kerosene pool fire experiments, conducted at the Institut fur Baustoffe,  ̈

Massivbau und Brandschutz (iBMB) of Braunschweig University of Technology in Germany in 

2004 [71]. These experiments involved relatively large fires in a relatively small (3.6 m by 3.6 

m by 5.7 m) concrete enclosure. Figure 4.4 shows plan, side and perspective schematic drawings 

of the experimental arrangement, including the location of the fuel pan, which was located at the 

center of the compartment. 

A second series of fire experiments in 2004, conducted under the International Collaborative 

Fire Model Project (ICFMP) involved realistically routed cable trays inside the same concrete enclosure at iBMB [72]. The compartment was configured slightly differently with a ceiling height 

of 5.6 m. A schematic diagram from plan, side, and perspective views of the experimental arrangement is shown in figure 4.5. 

41
 
Figure 4.4: Detailed plan, side, and perspective schematic drawings of the iBMB pool fire experimental arrangement. 

42 
Figure 4.5: Detailed plan, side, and perspective schematic drawings of the iBMB cable fire experimental arrangement. 

43 
4.6 LLNL Enclosure Tests
 

Sixty-four enclosure fire tests were conducted by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) 

in 1986 to study the effects of ventilation on enclosure fires [73]. The test enclosure was 6 m long, 

4 m wide, and 4.5 m high. It contained a methane rock burner which was placed in the center of 

the space. For most of the tests the burner was placed on the floor. The fires varied in size from 

50 kW to 400 kW. The burner was 0.57 m in diameter and 0.23 m height. 

The door (2.06 m high by 0.76 m wide) was closed and sealed for most tests, and air was 

pulled through the space at rates varying from 100 to 500 g/s. In some tests the enclosure included 

a plenum space, where make-up air could be injected from above or below. The test matrix is listed 

in Table 4.3. 

4.7 NBS Single Room Tests with Furniture 

These data describe a series of room fire tests using upholstered furniture items in a room of fixed 

size but with varying opening sizes and shapes [39] conducted by the National Bureau of Standards 

(NBS, former name of NIST). It was selected for its well characterized and realistic fuel sources 

in a simple single-room geometry. In addition, the wide variation in opening size should provide 

challenges for current zone fire models. Peak fire size was about 2.9 MW with a total room volume 

of 21 m3. A series of four single-room fire tests were conducted using upholstered furniture items 

for comparison with their free burning behavior, previously determined in a furniture calorimeter. 

The experiments were conducted in a single room enclosure; ventilation to the room was provided 

by window openings of varying sizes. The room was equipped with an instrumented exhaust 

collection system outside the window opening. 

A second similar test series also utilized a single-room fire test with furniture as the fire source 

[74]. It expanded upon the first data set by adding the phenomenon of wall burning. Peak fire 

size was about 7 MW. The room size was similar to the first test series. Figure 4.7 illustrates the 

configuration for the two test series. 

The test furniture included a 28.3 kg armchair or a similar 40.0 kg love seat for the first test 

series. Both were of conventional wood frame construction and used polyurethane foam padding, 

made to minimum California State flammability requirements, and polyolefin fabric. A single 

piece of test furniture and igniting wastebasket were the only combustibles in the test room. 

For the second test series, room furnishings consisted of a 1.37 m wide x 1.91 m long x 0.53 m 

high double bed, a 2.39 m X 0.89 m high headboard, and 0.51 m wide x 0.41 m deep x 0.63 m high 

night table. Both headboard and night table were fabricated from 12.7 mm thick plywood. The 

bedding was comprised of two pillows, two pillow cases, two sheets, and one blanket. The pillows 

had a polypropylene fabric with a polyester filling. The pillow cases and sheets were polyestercotton. The blanket was acrylic material. The bedding was left in a ”slept in” condition which was 

duplicated to the degree possible in each test. In all of the tests, the fire was started with match 

flame ignition of a 0.34 kg (240 mm x 140 mm x 240 mm high) wastebasket, filled with 0.41 kg of 

trash, positioned adjacent to the bed. 

44
 
5

10

15

20

25

30

Table 4.3: Summary of LLNL Enclosure Experiments.
 

Test 

No. 

Room 

Config. 

h0 

m 

Q  ̇

kW 

m  ̇

g/s 

T∞

◦C 

Test 

No. 

Room 

Config. 

h0 

m 

Q  ̇

kW 

m  ̇

g/s 

T∞

◦C 

1 TL 0 200 0 23 33 PH 0 100 200 23 

2 TL 0 200 0 27 34 PH 0 100 300 34 

3 TL 0 400 0 27 35 PH 0 100 400 22 

4 TL 0 300 0 24 36 PH 0 100 500 29 

TL 0 50 0 28 37 PH 0 200 100 20 

6 TL 0 100 0 29 38 PH 0 200 300 29 

7 TL 0 100 0 35 39 PH 0 250 100 18 

8 TL 0 200 0 35 40 PH 0 200 400 28 

9 TL 0 200 500 33 41 PH 0 150 100 20 

TL 0 200 100 28 42 PHE 2 200 180 30 

11 TL 0 200 200 18 43 PHE 2 200 0 32 

12 TL 0 200 300 21 44 PHE 1 200 180 19 

13 TL 0 200 400 28 45 PHE 1 200 0 30 

14 TL 0 200 400 28 46 PHE 0.6 200 180 19 

TL 0 100 300 24 47 PHE 0.6 200 0 19 

16 TL 0 200 300 21 48 PHE 0.3 200 0 21 

17 PL 0 200 500 26 49 PHE 0.3 200 180 26 

18 PL 0 200 400 21 50 PHE 1 200 180 21 

19 PL 0 200 300 18 51 PNE 1 200 NAT 33 

PL 0 200 200 16 52 PN 0 200 NAT 23 

21 PL 0 200 100 23 53 PHGS 0 200 185 33 

22 PH 0 200 190 30 54 PHGS 0 200 215 21 

23 PH 0 200 215 28 55 PN 0 100 NAT 31 

24 PH 0 200 205 26 56 PHGW 0 200 190 20 

PH 0 200 205 25 57 PHGW 0 200 215 29 

26 PH 0 200 500 24 58 PHX 0 200 190 18 

27 PH 0 200 100 23 59 PHXE 1 200 190 24 

28 PH 0 150 150 31 60 PN 0 400 NAT 22 

29 PH 0 250 250 28 61 TN 0 200 NAT 31 

PH 0 250 300 34 62 TN 0 400 NAT 22 

31 PH 0 250 500 36 63 TN 0 50 NAT 28 

32 PH 0 100 100 33 64 TN 0 100 NAT 17 

T full compartment N natural ventilation (door open) 

P plenum configuration X 3 ft extension on inlet opening 

L low inlet duct GS grate on inlet, north/south configuration 

H high inlet duct GW grate on inlet, east/west configuration 

E elevated fire, h0 

45
 
Figure 4.6: Geometry of the LLNL Enclosure Experiments.
 

46
 
T

T

H TVG

Fire source, specimen mass loss

Fire source, gas burner

Gas temperature array

Gas concentration (CO, CO , O )

Gas velocity array

2 2

T

G

V

Open

Vent

2.26 m

3.94 m

2.31 m 2.31 m 2.31 m

2.0 m

2.0 m

1.29 m

2.0 m

1.5 m 1.13 m

Figure 4.7: Plan and elevation view schematic of experimental room for NBS single room tests 

with furniture. Note dotted lines on burning specimen indicates vertical surface for wall burning 

experiments. Specimen and instrumentation placement are approximate. 

Figure 4.8: Burning specimen during NBS single room tests with furniture.
 

47
 
4.8 NBS Multi-Compartment Test Series 

The National Bureau of Standards (NBS, which is now called the National Institute of Standards 

and Technology, NIST) Multi-Room Experiments consisted of 45 fire tests representing 9 different 

sets of conditions were conducted in a three-room suite (see Figs. 4.9 and 4.10). The experiments 

were conducted in 1985 and are described in detail in Ref. [68]. The suite consisted of two relatively small rooms, connected via a relatively long corridor. The fire source, a gas burner, was 

located against the rear wall of one of the small compartments. Fire tests of 100 kW, 300 kW and 

500 kW were conducted. For the current study, only three 100 kW fire experiments have been 

used, including Test 100A from Set 1, Test 100O from Set 2, and Test 100Z from Set 4. These 

tests were selected because they had been used in prior validation studies, and because these tests 

had the steadiest values of measured heat release rate during the steady-burn period. 

Following is additional information provided by the test director, Richard Peacock of NIST: 

Heat Release Rate: In the two tests for which the door was open, the HRR during the steadyburn period measured via oxygen consumption calorimetry was 110 kW with an uncertainty 

of about 15 %, consistent with the replicate measurements made during the experimental 

series and the uncertainty typical of oxygen consumption calorimetry. It was assumed that 

the closed door test (Test 100O) had the same HRR as the open door tests. 

Radiative Fraction: Natural gas was used as the fuel in Test 100A. In Tests 100O and 100Z, 

acetylene was added to the natural gas to increase the smoke yield, and as a consequence, the 

radiative fraction increased. The radiative fraction of natural gas has been studied previously, 

whereas the radiative fraction of the acetylene/natural gas mixture has not been studied. The 

radiative fraction for the natural gas fire was assigned a value of 0.20, whereas a value of 

0.30 was assigned for the natural gas/acetylene fires. 

Measurements: Only two types of measurements conducted during the NBS test series were used 

in the evaluation considered here, because there was less confidence in the other measurements. The measurements considered here were the HGL temperature and depth, in which 

bare bead TCs were used to make these measurements. Single point measurements of temperature within the burn room were not used in the evaluation of plume or ceiling jet algorithms. This is because the geometry was not consistent in either case with the assumptions 

used in the model algorithms of plumes or jets. Specifically, the burner was mounted against 

a wall, and the room width-to-height ratio was less than that assumed by the various ceiling 

jet correlations. 

4.9 NIST / NRC Compartment Experiments 

These experiments, sponsored by the US NRC and conducted at NIST, consisted of 15 largescale experiments performed in June 2003. All 15 tests were included in the validation study. 

The experiments are documented in Ref. [75]. The fire sizes ranged from 350 kW to 2.2 MW in a 

compartment with dimensions 21.7 m by 7.1 m by 3.8 m high, designed to represent a compartment 

in a nuclear power plant containing power and control cables. A photo of the fire seen through the 

48
 
Figure 4.9: Photo of a 100 kW fire with the burner located against the rear wall of one of the small 

compartments in the NBS Multi-Compartment test Series. 

compartment doorway is shown in figure 4.11. A diagram of the test structure is displayed in 

Figure 4.12. 

The walls and ceiling were covered with two layers of marinate boards, each layer 0.0125 m 

thick. The floor was covered with one layer of gypsum board on top of a layer of plywood. 

Thermo-physical and optical properties of the marinate and other materials used in the compartment are given in Ref. [75]. The room had one door and a mechanical air injection and extraction 

system. Ventilation conditions, the fire size, and fire location were varied. Numerous measurements (approximately 350 per test) were made including gas and surface temperatures, heat fluxes 

and gas velocities. 

Following are some notes provided by Anthony Hamins, who conducted the experiments: 

Natural Ventilation: The compartment had a 2 m by 2 m door in the middle of the west wall. 

Some of the tests had a closed door and no mechanical ventilation (Tests 2, 7, 8, 13, and 

17), and in those tests the measured compartment leakage was an important consideration. 

The test report lists leakage areas based on measurements performed prior to Tests 1, 2, 7, 8, 

and 13. For the closed door tests, the leakage area used in the simulations was based on the 

last available measurement. The chronological order of the tests differed from the numerical 

order. For Test 4, the leakage area measured before Test 2 was used. For Tests 10 and 16, 

the leakage area measured before Test 7 was used. 

Mechanical Ventilation: The mechanical ventilation and exhaust was used during Tests 4, 5, 10, 

and 16, providing about 5 air changes per hour. The door was closed during Test 4 and open 

during Tests 5, 10, and 16. The supply duct was positioned on the south wall, about 2 m off 

the floor. An exhaust duct of equal area to the supply duct was positioned on the opposite 

wall at a comparable location. The flow rates through the supply and exhaust ducts were 

49
 
Figure 4.10: Plan, side and perspective schematic drawings of the NBS experimental arrangement, 

including the burner. 

50 
Figure 4.11: Photograph of a 1 MW heptane fire seen through the open doorway. Photo provided 

by Anthony Hamins, NIST. 

51
 
Figure 4.12: Plan, side and perspective schematic drawings of the NIST NRC experimental arrangement. The fuel pan and cables B, D, F, and G (dotted lines) are also shown.

52 
measured in detail during breaks in the testing, in the absence of a fire. During the tests, the 

flows were monitored with single bi-directional probes during the tests themselves. 

Heat Release Rate: A single nozzle was used to spray liquid hydrocarbon fuels onto a 1 m by 

2 m fire pan that was about 0.1 m deep. The test plan originally called for the use of two 

nozzles to provide the fuel spray. Experimental observation suggested that the fire was less 

unsteady with the use of a single nozzle. In addition, it was observed that the actual extent 

of the liquid pool was well-approximated by a 1 m circle in the center of the pan. For safety 

reasons, the fuel flow was terminated when the lower-layer oxygen concentration dropped to 

approximately 15 % by volume. The fuel used in 14 of the tests was heptane, while toluene 

was used for one test. The HRR was determined using oxygen consumption calorimetry. 

The recommended uncertainty values were 17 % for all of the tests. 

Radiative Fraction: The values of radiative fraction and its uncertainty were reported as 0.44 ±0.07 

and 0.40 ±0.09 for heptane and toluene, respectively. 

Soot Yield: The values of the soot yield and its uncertainty were reported as 0.0149 kg/kg ±0.0033 kg/kg 

and 0.195 kg/kg ±0.052 kg/kg for heptane and toluene, respectively. 

4.10 NIST Smoke Alarm Experiments 

A series of experiments was conducted by NIST to measure the activation time of ionization and 

photoelectric smoke alarms in a residential setting [76]. Tests were conducted in actual homes 

with representative sizes and floor plans, utilized actual furnishings and household items for fire 

sources, and tested actual smoke alarms sold in retail stores at that time. Thirty-six tests were 

conducted in two homes; 27 in a single-story manufactured home, and 8 in a two-story home. 

Figure 4.13 shows a diagram of the layout and instrumentation in the manufactured home. The 

primary partitioning of the 84.7 m2 floor plan consisted of three bedrooms: one full bathroom, 

one kitchen/dining area, one living room, and two hallways. For testing, the doors to bedroom 3 

and the bathroom were always closed. The ceiling was peaked on the long axis, reaching a height 

of 2.4 m. The outside walls were approximately 2.1 m in height. The slope of the ceiling was 

approximately 8.4◦. 

An upholstered chair, mattress, or pan of cooking oil was used as the fire source in each test. 

There were three primary ignition sources: flaming, smoldering, and cooking. The flaming ignition 

source used a moderate flame source to quickly ignite the fuel package. Groups of smoke alarms 

were located in the room of fire origin, at least one bedroom, and in a central location. Five stations 

(A-E) containing smoke alarm arrays were mounted parallel to the ceiling. 

Nine experiments that were conducted in the single-story manufactured home were selected 

for model validation. Only tests that used a flaming ignition source with a couch or mattress fuel 

package were considered; the cooking oil fires and tests that used a smoldering ignition source 

were not considered. 

Although a load cell was used in the experiments to measure the mass loss rate of the fuel 

package, the mass loss data were not reliable enough to reconstruct the HRR curves for each test. 

Instead, the HRR curves were determined by approximating the fire growth using a t

2 ramp, as 

53
 
Figure 4.13: Geometry of the NIST Smoke Alarm Experiments.
 

54
 
 

in Eq. (4.4). The parameters for the t

2 ramp were calibrated in FDS by using the temperature 

measured at the highest thermocouple in the tree (2 cm below the ceiling) in the fire room. 

2 t

Q ̇ = Q ̇0 (4.4)

τ

A time offset was used to align the predicted ceiling thermocouple temperatures with the measured 

temperatures. This offset is reported as the time at which the t

2 ramp begins. The t-squared 

calibration parameters and time offsets for the HRR ramps are shown in Table 4.4. Additionally, the 

ignition source had a small effect on the measured ceiling thermocouple temperatures. Therefore, 

the size of the ignition source was approximated as either 3 kW or 7 kW, and the time offset of the 

ignition source was also calibrated by using the measured ceiling thermocouple temperatures. The 

resulting HRR curve was input into CFAST. 

A summary of the nine tests selected for model validation is shown in Table 4.4. 

Table 4.4: Summary of NIST home smoke alarm experiments selected for model validation. 

Test No. Fire Source Fire Location Q ̇ 0 (kW) τ (s) Time Offset (s) 

SDC02 Chair Living Room 150 180 20 

SDC05 Mattress Bedroom 200 180 20 

SDC07 Mattress Bedroom 350 180 50 

SDC10 Chair Living Room 150 180 40 

SDC15 Chair Living Room 225 400 180 

SDC33 Chair Living Room 100 180 10 

SDC35 Chair Living Room 100 180 10 

SDC38 Mattress Bedroom 120 180 25 

SDC39 Mattress Bedroom 200 180 25 

4.11 PRISME Project 

PRISME is the name of a fire test program conducted under the auspices of the Organization 

for Economic Cooperation and Development, Nuclear Energy Agency (OECD/NEA). The experiments were conducted at the French Institut de radioprotection et de suret ˆ e nucl  ́ eaire (IRSN) at  ́

Cadarache. A variety of experiments were conducted to study ventilation effects, electrical cable 

failure, and leakage. The test reports are not publicly available, but an entire edition of Fire Safety 

Journal documented various experimental and modeling studies [77]. 

The PRISME DOOR series consisted of six experiments, five of which involving two compartments connected by an open door (Tests 1-5) and one involving a third compartment (Test 6). The 

compartments were 5 m by 6 m by 4 m high. A well-instrumented ventilation system supplied 

air and exhausted combustion products at specified rates, but the thermal expansion of the gases 

caused these rates to change, a phenomenon that was intended to test the ventilation capabilities of 

the models. 

55
 
4.12 SP Adiabatic Surface Temperature Experiments 

In 2008, three compartment experiments were performed at SP Technical Research Institute of 

Sweden under the sponsorship of Brandforsk, the Swedish Fire Research Board [78]. The objective 

of the experiments was to demonstrate how plate thermometer measurements in the vicinity of a 

simple steel beam can be used to supply the boundary conditions for a multi-dimensional heat 

conduction calculation for the beam. The adiabatic surface temperature was derived from the plate 

temperatures and used by TASEF, a finite-element thermal-structural program. 

The experiments were performed inside a standard compartment designed for corner fire testing 

(ISO 9705). The compartment is 3.6 m deep, 2.4 m wide and 2.4 m high and includes a door 

opening 0.8 m by 2.0 m. The room was constructed of 20 cm thick light weight concrete blocks 

with a density of 600 kg/m3 ± 100 kg/m3. The heat source was a gas burner run at a constant 

power of 450 kW. The top of the burner, with a square opening 30 cm by 30 cm, was placed 65 cm 

above the floor, 2.5 cm from the walls. A single steel beam was suspended 20 cm below the ceiling 

along the centerline of the compartment. There were three measurement stations along the beam at 

lengths of 0.9 m (Position A), 1.8 m (Position B), and 2.7 m (Position C) from the far wall where 

the fire was either positioned in the corner (Tests 1 and 2), or the center (Test 3). The beam in Test 

1 was a rectangular steel tube filled with an insulation material. The beam in Tests 2 and 3 was an 

I-beam. A diagram of the room used in Test 2 is displayed in Figure 4.14. 

A second series of experiments involving plate thermometers was carried out in 2011 [79]. A 

6 m long, 20 cm diameter vertical steel column was positioned in the center of 1.1 m and 1.9 m 

diesel fuel and 1.1 m heptane pool fires. Gas, plate thermometer, and surface temperatures were 

measured at heights of 1 m, 2 m, 3 m, 4 m, and 5 m above the pool surface. These experiments are 

notable because the column is partially engulfed in flames. 

4.13 Steckler Compartment Experiments 

Steckler, Quintiere and Rinkinen performed a set of 55 compartment fire tests at NBS in 1979 

[80]. The compartment was 2.80 m by 2.80 m by 2.13 m high1, with a single door of various 

widths, or alternatively a single window with various heights. A 30 cm diameter methane burner 

was used to generate fires with heat release rates of 31.6 kW, 62.9 kW, 105.3 kW and 158 kW. 

Vertical profiles of velocity and temperature were measured in the doorway, along with a single 

vertical profile of temperature within the compartment. A full description and results are reported 

in Reference [80]. The basic test matrix is listed in Table 4.5. Note that the test report does 

not include a detailed description of the compartment. However, an internal report2 by the test 

sponsor, Armstrong Cork Company, reports that the compartment floor was composed of 19 mm 

calcium silicate board on top of 12.7 mm plywood on wood joists. The walls and ceiling consisted 

of 12.7 mm ceramic fiber insulation board over 0.66 mm aluminum sheet attached to wood studs. 

A diagram of the compartment is displayed in Fig. 4.15. 

1The test report gives the height of the compartment as 2.18 m. This is a misprint. The compartment was 2.13 m 

high. 

2 Technical Research Report, Fire Induced Flows Through Room Openings - Flow Coefficients, Project 203005­

003, Armstrong Cork Company, Lancaster, Pennsylvania, May, 1981. 

56
 
Table 4.5: Summary of Steckler compartment experiments.
 

Test 

Opening 

Width 

(m) 

Opening 

Height 

(m) 

HRR 

Q  ̇

(kW) 

Burner 

Location Test 

Opening 

Width 

(m) 

Opening 

Height 

(m) 

HRR 

Q  ̇

(kW) 

Burner 

Location 

10 0.24 1.83 62.9 Center 224 0.74 0.92 62.9 Back Corner 

11 0.36 1.83 62.9 Center 324 0.74 0.92 62.9 Back Corner 

12 0.49 1.83 62.9 Center 220 0.74 1.83 31.6 Back Corner 

612 0.49 1.83 62.9 Center 221 0.74 1.83 105.3 Back Corner 

13 0.62 1.83 62.9 Center 514 0.24 1.83 62.9 Back Wall 

14 0.74 1.83 62.9 Center 544 0.36 1.83 62.9 Back Wall 

18 0.74 1.83 62.9 Center 512 0.49 1.83 62.9 Back Wall 

710 0.74 1.83 62.9 Center 542 0.62 1.83 62.9 Back Wall 

810 0.74 1.83 62.9 Center 610 0.74 1.83 62.9 Back Wall 

16 0.86 1.83 62.9 Center 510 0.74 1.83 62.9 Back Wall 

17 0.99 1.83 62.9 Center 540 0.86 1.83 62.9 Back Wall 

22 0.74 1.38 62.9 Center 517 0.99 1.83 62.9 Back Wall 

23 0.74 0.92 62.9 Center 622 0.74 1.38 62.9 Back Wall 

30 0.74 0.92 62.9 Center 522 0.74 1.38 62.9 Back Wall 

41 0.74 0.46 62.9 Center 524 0.74 0.92 62.9 Back Wall 

19 0.74 1.83 31.6 Center 541 0.74 0.46 62.9 Back Wall 

20 0.74 1.83 105.3 Center 520 0.74 1.83 31.6 Back Wall 

21 0.74 1.83 158.0 Center 521 0.74 1.83 105.3 Back Wall 

114 0.24 1.83 62.9 Back Corner 513 0.74 1.83 158.0 Back Wall 

144 0.36 1.83 62.9 Back Corner 160 0.74 1.83 62.9 Center∗

212 0.49 1.83 62.9 Back Corner 163 0.74 1.83 62.9 Back Corner∗

242 0.62 1.83 62.9 Back Corner 164 0.74 1.83 62.9 Back Wall∗

410 0.74 1.83 62.9 Back Corner 165 0.74 1.83 62.9 Left Wall∗

210 0.74 1.83 62.9 Back Corner 162 0.74 1.83 62.9 Right Wall∗

310 0.74 1.83 62.9 Back Corner 167 0.74 1.83 62.9 Front Center∗

240 0.86 1.83 62.9 Back Corner 161 0.74 1.83 62.9 Doorway∗

116 0.99 1.83 62.9 Back Corner 166 0.74 1.83 62.9 Front Corner∗

122 0.74 1.38 62.9 Back Corner ∗ Raised burner 

57
 
Figure 4.14: Geometry of the SP/AST compartment for Test 2. 

4.14 UL/NFPRF Sprinkler, Vent, and Draft Curtain Study 

In 1997, a series of 34 heptane spray burner experiments was conducted at the Large Scale Fire 

Test Facility at Underwriters Laboratories (UL) in Northbrook, Illinois [81]. The experiments were 

divided into two test series. Series I consisted of 22 4.4 MW experiments. Series II consisted of 

12 10 MW experiments. The objective of the experiments was to characterize the temperature and 

flow field for fire scenarios with a controlled heat release rate in the presence of sprinklers, draft 

curtains, and smoke & heat vents. 

The Large Scale Fire Test Facility at UL contains a 37 m by 37 m (120 ft by 120 ft) main fire 

test cell, equipped with a 30.5 m by 30.5 m (100 ft by 100 ft) adjustable height ceiling. The layout 

of the experiments is shown in Figs. 4.16 and 4.17. 

Ceiling: The ceiling was raised to a height of 7.6 m and instrumented with thermocouples and 

other measurement devices. The ceiling was constructed of 0.6 m by 1.2 m by 1.6 cm UL 

fire-rated Armstrong Ceramaguard (Item 602B) ceiling tiles. The manufacturer reported the 

58
 
Figure 4.15: Geometry of the Steckler Compartment Experiments.
 

59
 
North Wall 

Adjustable Height Ceiling

 

 

120i

 

 

100i

Draft Curtains

 

 

71i2ii

 20i

11ii - 67i1ii - 12i -

 

 

26i

 2i

10ii

 

 

2i

 - 

2i11ii

10i

A 

B 

C 

D 

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

98 91 84 81 78 75 72 

99 92 85 82 79 76 73 

100 93 86 83 80 77 74 

101 94 87 62 58 54 50 

102 95 88 63 59 55 51 

103 96 89 64 60 56 52 

104 97 90 65 61 57 53 

68 

69 

70 

67 66 

71

 

 

 

 

 

 

 43 

44 

45 

46 

47 

48 

49 

Figure 4.16: Plan view of the UL/NFPRF Experiments, Series I. The sprinklers are indicated by 

the solid circles and are spaced 3 m apart. The number beside each sprinkler location indicates 

the channel number of the nearest thermocouple. The vent dimensions are 4 ft by 8 ft. The boxed 

letters A, B, C and D indicate burner positions. Corresponding to each burner position is a vertical 

array of thermocouples. Thermocouples 1–9 hang 7, 22, 36, 50, 64, 78, 92, 106 and 120 in from 

the ceiling, respectively, above Position A. Thermocouples 10 and 11 are positioned above and 

below the ceiling tile directly above Position B, followed by 12–20 that hang at the same levels 

below the ceiling as 1–9. The same pattern is followed at Positions C and D, with thermocouples 

21–31 at C and 32–42 at D. 

60
 
 

 

 

 

North Wall 

South Wall 

120i

100i

D 

A 

B 

C 

E 

F

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 4.17: Plan view of the UL/NFPRF Experiments, Series II. The boxed letters A, B, C, D, 

E and F indicate burner positions. The sprinklers are indicated by the solid circles and are spaced 

10 ft apart. The branch lines run north to south. The vents are 4 ft by 8 ft. 

61
 
thermal properties of the material to be: specific heat 753 J/(kg·K), thermal conductivity 

0.0611 W/(m·K), and density 313 kg/m3. 

Draft Curtains: Sheet metal, 1.2 mm thick and 1.8 m deep, was suspended from the ceiling for 

16 of the 22 Series I tests, enclosing an area of about 450 m2 and 49 sprinklers. The curtains 

were in place for all of the Series II tests. 

Sprinklers: Central ELO-231 (Extra Large Orifice) uprights were used for all the tests. The orifice 

diameter of this sprinkler is reported by the manufacturer to be nominally 1.6 cm (0.64 in), 

the reference actuation temperature is reported by the manufacturer to be 74◦C (165◦F). The 

RTI (Response Time Index) and C-factor (Conductivity factor) were reported by UL to be 

148 (m·s) 2

1 and 0.7 (m/s) 21 , respectively [81]. When installed, the sprinkler deflector was 

located 8 cm below the ceiling. The thermal element of the sprinkler was located 11 cm 

below the ceiling. The sprinklers were installed with nominal 3 m by 3 m (exact 10 ft 

by 10 ft) spacing in a system designed to deliver a constant 0.34 L/(s·m2) (0.50 gpm/ft2) 

discharge density when supplied by a 131 kPa (19 psi) discharge pressure 

Vent: UL-listed double leaf fire vents with steel covers and steel curb were installed in the adjustable height ceiling in the position shown in Figs. 4.16 and 4.17. The vent is designed to 

open manually or automatically. The vent doors were recessed into the ceiling about 0.3 m 

(1 ft). 

Heat Release Rate: The heptane spray burner consisted of a 1 m by 1 m square of 1.3 cm pipe 

supported by four cement blocks 0.6 m off the floor. Four atomizing spray nozzles were used 

to provide a free spray of heptane that was then ignited. For all but one of the Series I tests, 

the total heat release rate from the fire was manually ramped up following a “t-squared” 

curve to a steady-state in 75 s (150 s was used in Test I-16). The fire was ramped to 10 MW 

in 75 s for the Series II tests. The fire growth curve was followed until a specified fire size 

was reached or the first sprinkler activated. After either of these events, the fire size was 

maintained at that level until conditions reached roughly a steady state, i.e., the temperatures recorded near the ceilings remained steady and no more sprinkler activations occurred. 

The heat release rate from the burner was confirmed by placing it under the large product 

calorimeter at UL, ramping up the flow of heptane in the same manner as in the tests, and 

measuring the total and convective heat release rates. It was found that the convective heat 

release rate was 0.65 ± 0.02 of the total. 

Instrumentation: The instrumentation for the tests consisted of thermocouples, gas analysis equipment, and pressure transducers. The locations of the instrumentation are referenced in the 

plan view of the facility (Fig. 4.16). Temperature measurements were recorded at 104 locations. Type K 0.0625 in diameter Inconel sheathed thermocouples were positioned to 

measure (i) temperatures near the ceiling, (ii) temperatures of the ceiling jet, and (iii) temperatures near the vent. 

62
 
Figure 4.18: Geometry of the UL/NIST Experiments. 

4.15 UL/NIST Vent Experiments 

In 2012, the Fire Fighting Technology Group at NIST conducted experiments at Underwriters 

Laboratories (UL) in Northbrook, Illinois, to assess the change in compartment temperature due 

to the opening of one or two 1.2 m square ceiling vents [82]. Four experiments were conducted 

using a natural gas burner in a 6.1 m by 4.3 m by 2.4 m compartment with a single door opening. The fires ranged in size from 500 kW to 2 MW, and the vents were opened and closed such 

that during the four experiments there were 31 discrete time intervals in which model predictions 

could be compared to quasi-steady conditions. The compartment contained two vertical arrays of 

thermocouples, and the door and vents were instrumented with thermocouples and bi-directional 

velocity probes. Only the thermocouple data has been used in the validation study. A diagram of 

the compartment is displayed in Figure 4.18. The major test parameters are listed in Table 4.6. 

63
 
Table 4.6: Summary of UL/NIST Vent experiments. Note that the 31 “experiments” are actually 

discrete time intervals during the course of four separate fires. 

Exp. 

No. 

End Time 

(s) 

HRR 

(kW) 

No. of 

Vents 

Exp. 

No. 

End Time 

(s) 

HRR 

(kW) 

No. of 

Vents 

Fire 1 Fire 3 

1 1215 430 0 14 453 476 0 

2 1840 430 1 15 816 476 1 

3 2168 430 2 16 1153 476 2 

4 2474 430 0 17 1640 1002 0 

5 2955 1011 0 18 1936 1002 1 

6 3170 1011 1 19 2233 1002 2 

7 3604 1011 2 Fire 4 

8 3840 1011 0 20 519 1011 0 

9 4153 2188 0 21 967 1011 1 

10 4284 2188 1 22 1325 1011 2 

Fire 2 23 1559 470 2 

11 565 2144 0 24 1653 470 1 

12 833 2144 1 25 2013 470 0 

13 931 2144 2 26 2411 470 1 

27 2910 470 2 

28 3399 2188 2 

29 3586 2188 0 

30 3803 2188 1 

31 4035 2188 2 

4.16 USN High Bay Hangar Experiments 

The U.S. Navy sponsored a series of 33 tests within two hangars examining fire detection and sprinkler activation in response to spill fires in large enclosures [83, 84]. Experiments were conducted 

using JP-5 and JP-8 fuels in two Navy high bay aircraft hangars located in Naval Air Stations in 

Barber’s Point, Hawaii and Keflavik, Iceland. 

The Hawaii tests were conducted in a 15 m high hangar measuring 97.8 m in length and 73.8 m 

in width. Of the 13 tests conducted in the facility 11 were conducted in pans ranging from .09 m2 

to 4.9 m2 in area with heat release rates varying from 100 kW to 7.7 MW. The burner was placed 

in the center of the room on a scale that continuously recorded the pans weight. The facility 

was equipped with a number of detection devices including thermocouples, electronic smoke and 

spot heat detectors, projected beam smoke detectors, combination UV/IR optical flame detectors, 

line-type heat detectors, as well as sprinklers. Measurements were recorded at a large number of 

locations allowing for a through profile of compartment behavior. 

It was suspected that fire plume behavior and response of detection devices in a cold building 

may not have been well replicated by the experiments held in the warm hangar in Hawaii. The 

64
 
Iceland tests were conducted under a 22 m barrel vaulted ceiling in a hangar measuring 45.7 m by 

73.8 m. 22 tests in total were conducted. The majority of these tests fires burned JP-5 fuel with the 

remainder burning JP-8. The jet fuel fires ranged in size from .06 m2 to 20.9 m2 and in heat release 

rate from 100 kW to approximately 33 MW. The facility was equipped similarly to the Hawaii 

hangar. 

4.17 Vettori Flat Ceiling Experiments 

Vettori [85] analyzed a series of 45 experiments conducted at NIST that were intended to compare 

the effects of different ceiling configurations on the activation times of quick response residential pendent sprinklers. The two ceiling configurations used consisted of an obstructed ceiling, 

with parallel beams 0.038 m wide by 0.24 m deep placed 0.41 m on center, and a smooth ceiling 

configuration, in which the beams were covered by a sheet of gypsum board. In addition to the 

two ceiling configurations, there were also three fire growth rates and three burner locations used 

– a total of 18 test configurations. The fire growth rate was provided by a computer controlled 

methane gas burner to mimic a standard t-squared fire growth rate with either a slow, medium, or 

fast ramp up. The burner was placed in a corner of the room, then against an adjacent wall, and 

then in a location removed from any wall. Measurements were taken to record sprinkler activation 

time, temperatures at varying heights and locations within the room, and the ceiling jet velocities 

at several other locations. A diagram of the test structure is displayed in Figure 4.19. 

4.18 VTT Large Hall Tests 

The experiments are described in Ref. [86]. The series consisted of 8 experiments, but because of 

replicates only three unique fire scenarios. The experiments were undertaken to study the movement of smoke in a large hall with a sloped ceiling. The tests were conducted inside the VTT 

Fire Test Hall, with dimensions of 19 m high by 27 m long by 14 m wide. Each test involved a 

single heptane pool fire, ranging from 2 MW to 4 MW. Four types of predicted output were used 

in the present evaluation – the HGL temperature and depth, average flame height and the plume 

temperature. Three vertical arrays of thermocouples (TC), plus two thermocouples in the plume, 

were compared to CFAST predictions. The HGL temperature and height were reduced from an 

average of the three TC arrays using the standard algorithm described in Chapter 5. The ceiling 

jet temperature was not considered, because the ceiling in the test hall is not flat, and the standard 

model algorithm is not appropriate for this geometry. 

The VTT test report lacks some information needed to model the experiments, which is why 

some information was based on private communications with the principal investigator, Simo 

Hostikka. 

Surface Materials: The walls and ceiling of the test hall consist of a 1 mm thick layer of sheet 

metal on top of a 5 cm layer of mineral wool. The floor was constructed of concrete. The 

report does not provide thermal properties of these materials. 

Natural Ventilation: In Cases 1 and 2, all doors were closed, and ventilation was restricted to 

infiltration through the building envelope. Precise information on air infiltration during these 

65
 
Figure 4.19: Geometry of the Vettori Flat Ceiling compartment.
 

66
 
tests is not available. The scientists who conducted the experiments recommend a leakage 

area of about 2 m2, distributed uniformly throughout the enclosure. By contrast, in Case 3, 

the doors located in each end wall (Doors 1 and 2, respectively) were open to the external 

ambient environment. These doors are each 0.8 m wide by 4 m high, and are located such 

that their centers are 9.3 m from the south wall. 

Mechanical Ventilation: The test hall has a single mechanical exhaust duct, located in the roof 

space, running along the center of the building. This duct had a circular section with a 

diameter of 1 m, and opened horizontally to the hall at a distance of 12 m from the floor and 

10.5 m from the west wall. Mechanical exhaust ventilation was operational for Case 3, with 

a constant volume flow rate of 11 m3/s drawn through the exhaust duct. 

Heat Release Rate: Each test used a single liquid fuel pan with its center located 16 m from the 

west wall and 7.4 m from the south wall. For all tests, the fuel was heptane in a circular 

steel pan that was partially filled with water. The pan had a diameter of 1.17 m for Case 1 

and 1.6 m for Cases 2 and 3. In each case, the fuel surface was 1 m above the floor. The 

trays were placed on load cells, and the HRR was calculated from the mass loss rate. For the 

three cases, the fuel mass loss rate was averaged from individual replicate tests. In the HRR 

estimation, the heat of combustion (taken as 44,600 kJ/kg) and the combustion efficiency 

for n-heptane was used. Hostikka suggests a value of 0.8 for the combustion efficiency. 

Tewarson reports a value of 0.93 for a 10 cm pool fire [87]. For the calculations reported 

in the current study, a combustion efficiency of 0.85 is assumed. In general, an uncertainty 

of 15 % has been assumed for the reported HRR of most of the large scale fire experiments 

used. 

Radiative Fraction: The radiative fraction was assumed to be 0.35, similar to many smoky hydrocarbons. 

A diagram of the test structure is displayed in Figure 4.20. Figure 4.21 is a photo of a 2 MW fire. 

67
 
Figure 4.20: Plan, side and perspective schematic drawings of the experimental arrangement of the 

VTT large hall fire tests, including the fuel pan 

68 
Figure 4.21: Photo of a 2 MW heptane fire during the VTT large hall tests. Photo provided by 

Simo Hostikka, VTT. 

69
 
4.19 WTC Spray Burner Test Series 

As part of its investigation of the World Trade Center disaster, the Building and Fire Research Laboratory at NIST conducted several series of fire experiments to both gain insight into the observed 

fire behavior and to validate FDS for use in reconstructing the fires. The first series of experiments 

involved a relatively simple compartment with a liquid spray burner and various structural elements 

with varying amounts of sprayed fire-resistive materials (SFRM). A diagram of the compartment 

is shown in figure 4.22. A complete description of the experiments can be found in the NIST WTC 

report NCSTAR 1-5B [88]. The overall enclosure was rectangular, as were the vents and most of 

the obstructions. The compartment walls and ceiling were made of 2.54 cm thick marinite. The 

manufacturer provided the thermal properties of the material used in the calculation. The density 

was 737 kg/m3, conductivity 0.12 W/m/K, and the specific heat ranged from 1.17 kJ/kg/K at 93 ◦C 

to 1.42 kJ/kg/K at 425 ◦C. This value was assumed for higher temperatures. The steel used to 

construct the column and truss flanges was 0.64 cm thick. The density of the steel was assumed to 

be 7,860 kg/m3; its specific heat 0.45 kJ/kg/K. 

Two fuels were used in the tests. The properties of the fuels were obtained from measurements 

made on a series of unconfined burns that are referenced in the test report. The first fuel was 

a blend of heptane isomers, C7H16. Its soot yield in CFAST was set at a constant 1.5 %. The 

second fuel was a mixture (40 % - 60 % by volume) of toluene, C7H8, and heptane. Because a fire 

in CFAST only considers the burning of a single hydrocarbon fuel, the mixture was taken to be 

C7H12 with a soot yield of 11.2 %. The radiative fraction for the heptane blend was 0.44; for the 

heptane/toluene mixture it was 0.39. The heat release rate of the simulated burner was set to that 

which was measured in the experiments with the fire placed on the floor at the center of the fire 

pan. 

70
 
Figure 4.22: Geometry of the compartment used for the WTC Experiments.
 

71
 
72
 
Chapter 5 

Hot Gas Layer Temperature and Depth 

CFAST simulated all of the chosen experiments. Details of the comparisons with experimental 

data, are provided in Appendix B. The results are organized by quantity as follows: 

• hot gas layer (HGL) temperature and height 

• ceiling jet temperature 

• plume temperature 

• flame height 

• oxygen and carbon dioxide concentration 

• smoke concentration 

• compartment pressure 

• radiation heat flux, total heat flux, and target temperature 

• wall heat flux and surface temperature 

The measure of model accuracy used throughout this study is related to experimental uncertainty. In brief, the accuracy of a measurement, for example, a gas temperature, is related to the 

measurement device, a thermocouple. In addition, the accuracy of the model prediction of the gas 

temperature is related to the simplified physical description of the fire and the accuracy of the input 

parameters, especially the specified heat release rate. Ideally, the purpose of a validation study is 

to determine the accuracy of the model in the absence of any errors related to the measurement of 

both its inputs and outputs. Because it is impossible to eliminate experimental uncertainty, at the 

very least a combination of the uncertainty in the measurement of model inputs and output can be 

used as a yardstick for the model predictions. Black dotted lines in figure 5.1 show this combined 

uncertainty estimate for the prediction of HGL temperature. Corresponding estimates are included 

for other quantities in later chapters. If the numerical prediction falls within the range of uncertainty attributable to both the measurement of the input parameters and the output quantities, it is 

not possible to further quantify its accuracy. At this stage, it is said that the prediction is within 

73
 
experimental uncertainty. Reference [51] discusses this issue in detail. Red dotted lines in figure 

5.1 show the calculated uncertainty in the model results compared to the experimental results. 

Note that the calculation of relative difference is based on the temperature rise above ambient, 

and the layer depth, that is, the distance from the ceiling to where the hot gas layer descends. Where 

the model over-predicts the HGL temperature or the depth of the HGL, the relative difference is 

a positive number. This convention is used throughout this report where the model over-predicts 

the severity of the fire, the relative difference is positive; where it under-predicts, the difference is 

negative. 

Arguably the most frequent question asked about a fire is, “How hot did it become?” Average 

temperature in the upper layer of a compartment is an obvious indicator to answer this question. 

Peak temperature, time to peak temperature, or time to reach a chosen temperature tenability limit 

are typical values of interest. Quality of the prediction (or measurement) of layer interface position 

is more difficult to quantify. Although observed in a range of experiments, the two-layer assumption is in many ways just a convenience for modeling. In experimental measurements, temperature 

is typically measured with an array of thermocouples from floor to ceiling. This floor to ceiling 

temperature profile can then used to estimate a hot gas layer height and the temperature of the upper and lower gas layers [89] [90] consistent with the two-zone assumption. Appendix A provides 

details of the calculation. 

From a standpoint of hazard, time of descent of the hot gas layer to a chosen level may be a 

reasonable criterion The position of this gas layer interface represents the break between a clean 

atmosphere near the floor and the hazardous upper layer gases. Minimum values may also be used 

to indicate general agreement. For the single-room tests with furniture or wall-burning, these are 

appropriate indicators to judge the comparisons between model and experiment. For the moreclosely steady-state tests , a steady-state average may better characterize the experimental results. 

A good prediction of the HGL height is largely a consequence of a good prediction of its 

temperature because smoke and heat are largely transported together and most numerical models 

describe the transport of both with the same type of algorithm. Typically, CFAST slightly overpredicts the HGL temperature, most often within experimental uncertainty. Hot gas layer height 

is typically within experimental uncertainty for well-ventilated tests and near floor level for underventilated tests where compartments are closed to the outside. For HGL height, both open- and 

closed-door tests are included. For closed-door tests, visual observations typically show that the 

HGL fills the entire compartment volume from floor to ceiling, inconsistent with the calculated 

results for the experimental data. Thus, the comparisons with experimental values of HGL height 

for closed-door tests are expected to have larger differences that those for open-door tests. 

Figures 5.1 and 5.2 shows a comparison of predicted and measured values for HGL temperature 

and depth. Appendix B provides individual graphs of model and experimental values. 

5.1 Summary of Hot Gas Layer Temperature and Height 

The two-zone assumption inherent in CFAST, modeled as a series of ordinary differential equations 

that describe mass and energy conservation of flows in a multiple-compartment structure typically 

provide prediction of gas layer temperature and layer height for the applications studied. 

• The CFAST predictions of the HGL temperature and height are, with exceptions, are clustered near experimental uncertainty. The CFAST predictions are typical of those found in 

74
 
0 200 400 600 800 1000

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

Measured Temperature Rise (°C)

Predicted Temperature Rise (°C)

HGL Temperature: Natural Ventilation (CFAST)

Exp. Rel. Std. Dev.: 0.07

Model Rel. Std. Dev.: 0.40

Model Bias Factor: 1.13

ATF Corridors

LLNL Enclosure

NBS

NIST/NRC

Steckler Compartment

UL/NIST Vents

VTT

WTC

iBMB

0 100 200 300 400 500

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Measured Temperature Rise (°C)

Predicted Temperature Rise (°C)

HGL Temperature: Forced Ventilation (CFAST)

Exp. Rel. Std. Dev.: 0.07

Model Rel. Std. Dev.: 0.22

Model Bias Factor: 1.13

FM/NBS

FM/SNL

LLNL Enclosure

NIST/NRC

PRISME

VTT

0 100 200 300 400 500

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Measured Temperature Rise (°C)

Predicted Temperature Rise (°C)

HGL Temperature: No Ventilation (CFAST)

Exp. Rel. Std. Dev.: 0.07

Model Rel. Std. Dev.: 0.24

Model Bias Factor: 0.99

LLNL Enclosure

NBS

NIST/NRC

Figure 5.1: Overall comparison of Measured and Predicted HGL Temperature.
 

75
 
0 5 10 15 20

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

Measured Layer Depth (m)

Predicted Layer Depth (m)

HGL Depth (CFAST)

Exp. Rel. Std. Dev.: 0.05

Model Rel. Std. Dev.: 0.28

Model Bias Factor: 1.00

ATF Corridors

FM/NBS

FM/SNL

NBS

NIST/NRC

PRISME

Steckler Compartment

UL/NIST Vents

VTT

WTC

iBMB

0 5 10 15 20

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

Measured Layer Depth (m)

Predicted Layer Depth (m)

HGL Depth: Open Compartments (CFAST)

Exp. Rel. Std. Dev.: 0.05

Model Rel. Std. Dev.: 0.18

Model Bias Factor: 0.91

ATF Corridors

FM/NBS

NBS

NIST/NRC

Steckler Compartment

VTT

WTC

iBMB

0 5 10 15 20

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

Measured Layer Depth (m)

Predicted Layer Depth (m)

HGL Depth: Closed Compartments (CFAST)

Exp. Rel. Std. Dev.: 0.05

Model Rel. Std. Dev.: 0.24

Model Bias Factor: 1.45

FM/SNL

NBS

NIST/NRC

VTT

Figure 5.2: Overall comparison of Measured and Predicted HGL Height.
 

76
 
other studies where the HGL temperature is typically somewhat over-predicted and HGL 

height somewhat lower (HGL depth somewhat thicker) than experimental measurements. 

These differences are likely attributable to simplifications in the model dealing with mixing 

between the layers, entrainment in the fire plume, and flow through vents. 

• Calculation of HGL temperature and height has higher uncertainty in rooms remote from 

the fire compared to those in the fire compartment. Most likely, this is due to a combination 

of the simplified vent flow predictions (based on idealized Bernoulli flow) and the assumption of constant compartment surface thermal properties that are assumed independent of 

temperature. 

• It is worth noting that the UL/NIST Vents tests which include large vents in the ceiling of 

the test compartment show particularly higher HGL temperatures and corresponding smaller 

upper layer volume compared to experimental values. Without these tests, the model uncertainties would be significantly lower. This is likely due to the large size of the vents relative 

to those included in the original experimental correlations used by CFAST. 

77
 
78
 
Chapter 6 

Fire Plumes, Ceiling Jets, and Device 

Activation 

6.1 Flame Height 

Flame height is recorded by visual observations, photographs, or video footage. Videos from the 

NIST/NRC test series and photographs from the VTT Large Hall Test Series were used to estimate 

flame height. It is difficult to precisely measure the average flame height, but the photos and videos 

allow one to make estimates relative to a known burner diameter for the tests. 

VTT Large Hall Test Series 

The height of the visible flame in photographs has been estimated to be between 2.4 and 3 pan 

diameters (3.8 m to 4.8 m). From the CFAST calculations, the estimated flame height is 4.3 m. 

NIST/NRC Test Series 

CFAST estimates the peak flame height to be 2.8 m, consistent with the roughly 3 m flame height 

observed through the doorway during the test. The test series was not designed to record accurate 

measurements of flame height. 

NIST/Navy High Bay Hangar Test Series 

For the 9 Iceland tests, CFAST predicts flame height within 25 % of the experimentally reported 

values, with the largest relative differences for the smaller heat release rate fires. Uncertainty in 

the flame height measurements for the experiments was reported to be ± 0.5 m, approaching 30 % 

of the experimental values for the lower heat release rate fires. 

6.2 Plume Temperature 

As with the ceiling jet, CFAST includes a specific plume temperature model based on the model of 

Alpert and Heskestad [91] to account for presence of higher gas temperatures near a target located 

79
 
0 200 400 600 800 1000

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

Measured Temperature Rise (°C)

Predicted Temperature Rise (°C)

Plume Temperature (CFAST)

Exp. Rel. Std. Dev.: 0.07

Model Rel. Std. Dev.: 0.29

Model Bias Factor: 1.09

FM/SNL

SP AST Column

USN Hangars, Hawaii

USN Hangars, Iceland

VTT

Figure 6.1: Comparison of Measured and Predicted Plume Centerline Temperature. 

at the centerline of the fire plume. The correlation has been subjected to validation efforts by [24] 

and shown to provide predictions within about 30 % of a wide range of experimental results [24]. 

In the model, this increased temperature has the effect of increasing the convective heat transfer to 

the target. Only two of the six test series (VTT and FM/SNL) included measurements of plume 

centerline temperature. 

Figure 6.1 shows a comparison of predicted and measured values for plume temperature. Appendix B provides individual graphs of model and experimental values. All of the comparisons are 

to the surrounding gas temperature predicted by CFAST. Comparisons to the target surface temperature or target center temperature would be expected to have a smaller relative difference since 

all the predictions of surrounding gas temperature are higher than experimental measurements. 

Following is a summary of the predictions in the two test series. 

6.3 Ceiling Jets 

CFAST includes an algorithm to account for the presence of the higher gas temperatures near the 

ceiling surfaces in compartments involved in a fire. In the model, this increased temperature has the 

effect of increasing the convective heat transfer to ceiling surfaces. The temperature and velocity 

of the ceiling jet are also available from the model by placing a heat detector at the specified 

location. The ceiling jet algorithm is based on the model of Alpert and Heskestad [91], with details 

described in the CFAST Technical Reference Guide [58]. The algorithm predicts gas temperature 

80
 
 

0 200 400 600 800 1000

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

Measured Temperature Rise (°C)

Predicted Temperature Rise (°C)

Ceiling Jet Temperature (CFAST)

Exp. Rel. Std. Dev.: 0.07

Model Rel. Std. Dev.: 0.42

Model Bias Factor: 1.06

ATF Corridors

FM/SNL

NIST Smoke Alarms

NIST/NRC

PRISME

SP AST

UL/NFPRF Series I

UL/NIST Vents

Vettori Flat Ceiling

WTC

Figure 6.2: Comparison of Measured and Predicted Ceiling Jet Temperature. 

and velocity under a flat, unconstrained ceiling above a fire source. Only two of the six test series 

(NIST/NRC and FM/SNL) involved relatively large flat ceilings. 

Figure 6.2 shows a comparison of predicted and measured values for ceiling jet temperature. 

Appendix B provides individual graphs of model and experimental values. Following is a summary 

of the accuracy assessment for the ceiling jet predictions. 

6.4 Device Activation 

Smoke detector, heat detector, and sprinkler activations are all treated similarly in CFAST. Device 

activation is modeled using temperatures and velocities from the ceiling jet. For rooms without 

a fire (which do not have a ceiling jet), the upper layer temperature (and a default velocity of 

0.1 m/s) is used. Devices are described with a characteristic activation temperature and response 

time index (RTI). The RTI a measure of the sensor’s sensitivity to temperature change (thermal 

inertia). For heat detectors and sprinklers, the activation temperature and RTI values are part of the 

device specification. For smoke detectors, a temperature rise of 10 ◦C and RTI of 5 (m s)1/2 were 

used, consistent with values in NUREG 1805 [92]. With these inputs, the characteristic detector 

temperature is modeled using the differential equation [93] 

dTL v(t) = (Tg(t)−TL(t)) , TL(0) = Tg(0) (6.1) dt RT I 

81
 
where TL and Tg are the link and gas temperatures, v is the gas velocity, and RT I. 

Figure 6.3 shows a comparison of predicted and measured values for activation times. Appendix B provides individual graphs of model and experimental values. 

82
 
t
 

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Measured Time to Activation (s)

Predicted Time to Activation (s)

Sprinkler Activation Time (CFAST)

Exp. Rel. Std. Dev.: 0.06

Model Rel. Std. Dev.: 0.20

Model Bias Factor: 1.01

UL/NFPRF Series I

UL/NFPRF Series II

Vettori Flat Ceiling

Vettori Flat Ceiling Obstructed

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Measured Time to Activation (s)

Predicted Time to Activation (s)

Smoke Detector Activation Time (CFAST)

Exp. Rel. Std. Dev.: 0.34

Model Rel. Std. Dev.: 0.39

Model Bias Factor: 1.77

NIST Smoke Alarms

Figure 6.3: Comparison of Measured and Predicted Ceiling Jet Temperature.
 

83
 
84
 
Chapter 7 

Gas Species and Smoke 

CFAST simulates a fire as a mass of fuel that burns at a prescribed rate and releases both energy and 

combustion products. CFAST calculates species production based on these user-defined production 

yields, and both the mass burning rate and the resulting energy and species generation may be 

limited by the oxygen available for combustion. Mass and species concentrations, assumed to be 

homogeneous throughout each layer, are tracked by the model as gases flow through openings in a 

structure to other compartments in the structure or to the outdoors. 

The fire chemistry scheme in CFAST is essentially a species balance from user-prescribed 

species yields and the oxygen available for combustion. For a given scenario, the user specifies the 

fuel that is burned, and the yield of CO and soot. Once generated, it is a matter of bookkeeping to 

track the mass of species throughout the various control volumes in a simulated building. It does, 

however, provide a check of the flow algorithms within the model. Since the major species (CO 

and CO2) are generated only by the fire, the relative accuracy of the predicted values throughout 

multiple rooms of a structure should be comparable. 

Gas sampling data are available from a number of the experimental tests. Species yields for 

CFAST simulations were taken from the experimental reports. 

7.1 Oxygen, CO2, and CO 

Generation of oxygen and CO2 are calculated by CFAST based on the user-specified fuel and a 

simple combustion reaction. CFAST treats CO like all other combustion products, with an overall 

mass balance dependent on interrelated user-specified species yields for major combustion species. 

To model CO, the user prescribes the CO yield relative to the mass burning rate. Details are 

available in the CFAST Technical Reference Guide [58]. 

Figure 7.1 shows a comparison of predicted and measured values for oxygen and carbon dioxide concentrations, along with a summary of the relative difference for the tests. 

7.2 Smoke 

CFAST treats smoke like all other combustion products, with an overall mass balance dependent 

on interrelated user-specified species yields for major combustion species. To model smoke, the 

user prescribes the smoke yield relative to the mass burning rate. A simple combustion chemistry 

85
 
0 0.05 0.1 0.15

0

0.05

0.1

Measured Drop in Volume Fraction

Predicted Drop in Volume Fraction

Oxygen Concentration (CFAST)

Exp. Rel. Std. Dev.: 0.08

Model Rel. Std. Dev.: 0.28

Model Bias Factor: 1.09

FM/NBS

NBS

NIST/NRC

PRISME

WTC

0 0.05 0.1 0.15

0

0.05

0.1

Measured Rise in Volume Fraction

Predicted Rise in Volume Fraction

Carbon Dioxide Concentration (CFAST)

Exp. Rel. Std. Dev.: 0.08

Model Rel. Std. Dev.: 0.28

Model Bias Factor: 0.93

FM/NBS

NIST/NRC

PRISME

WTC

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

x 10−3

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

x 10−3

Measured Change in Volume Fraction

Predicted Change in Volume Fraction

Carbon Monoxide Concentration (CFAST)

Exp. Rel. Std. Dev.: 0.19

Model Rel. Std. Dev.: 0.75

Model Bias Factor: 1.76

NIST/NRC

PRISME

Figure 7.1: Comparison of Measured and Predicted Oxygen Concentration, Carbon Dioxide Concentration, and Carbon Monoxide Concentration. 

86
 
0 100 200 300 400 500 600

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Measured Density (mg/m3)

Predicted Density (mg/m

3

)

Smoke Concentration (CFAST)

Exp. Rel. Std. Dev.: 0.19

Model Rel. Std. Dev.: 0.68

Model Bias Factor: 3.42

NIST/NRC

Figure 7.2: Comparison of Measured and Predicted Smoke Concentration. 

scheme in the model then determines the smoke particulate concentration in the form of an optical 

density. Figure 7.2 shows a comparison of predicted and measured values for smoke concentration 

along with a summary of the relative difference for the tests. 

87
 
88
 
Chapter 8 

Pressure 

Comparisons between measurement and prediction of compartment pressure for the NIST/NRC 

test series and two of the NBS furniture tests are shown in of Appendix B. Figure 8.1 shows a 

comparison of predicted and measured values for compartment pressure, along with a summary of 

the relative difference for the tests. 

For those tests in which the door to the compartment is open, the magnitude of the pressures 

are only a few Pascals; however, when the door is closed, the over-pressures are several hundred 

Pascals. For both the open- and closed-door tests, CFAST predicts the pressure to within experimental uncertainty with exceptions. The most notable exception is Test 16, which involved a large 

(2.3 MW) fire with the door closed and the ventilation on. By contrast, Test 10 involved a 1.2 MW 

fire with comparable geometry and ventilation. There is considerable uncertainty in the magnitude 

of both the supply and return mass flow rates for Test 16. Compared to Test 16, Test 10 involves 

a greater measured supply velocity and a lesser measured exhaust velocity. This is probably the 

result of the higher pressure caused by the larger fire in Test 16. CFAST does not adjust the ventilation rate based on the compartment pressure until a specified cutoff pressure is reached. This is 

also the most likely explanation for the over-prediction of compartment pressure in Test 16. 

In general, prediction of pressure in CFAST in closed compartments is critically dependent 

on correct specification of the leakage from the compartment. Compartments are rarely entirely 

sealed, and small changes in the leakage area can produce significant changes in the predicted 

over-pressure. Information on leakage is not typically available for experimental data sets. For 

closed compartment tests, which typically included mechanical ventilation systems, leakage was 

estimated by matching the experimental pressure prior to ignition by inserting a small vent in 

the wall of each compartment and comparing the measured and calculated compartment pressure 

without a fire in the simulation. 

89
 
0 500 1000 1500

0

500

1000

1500

Measured Pressure Rise (Pa)

Predicted Pressure Rise (Pa)

Compartment Over−Pressure (CFAST)

Exp. Rel. Std. Dev.: 0.23

Model Rel. Std. Dev.: 0.63

Model Bias Factor: 1.37

LLNL Enclosure

NIST/NRC

PRISME

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Measured Pressure Drop (Pa)

Predicted Pressure Drop (Pa)

Open Compartment Over−Pressure (CFAST)

Exp. Rel. Std. Dev.: 0.23

Model Rel. Std. Dev.: 0.56

Model Bias Factor: 1.32

LLNL Enclosure

NBS

NIST/NRC

Figure 8.1: Comparison of Measured and Predicted Compartment Pressure. 

90 
Chapter 9 

Surface Temperature 

Solid surfaces in CFAST are treated as one-dimensional transient conduction problems. This chapter divides solid surfaces into two major categories – compartment linings (i.e., walls, ceiling, floor) 

and targets (i.e., anything that is not a wall, ceiling, or floor). Heat transfer to the inside surface 

of compartment linings and the front and rear faces (as specified by the user) of targets consists 

of convection (through the use of empirical correlations) and radiation (calculated by the model 

using view factors for the fire, gas layers, and compartment surfaces). Heat conduction into a solid 

surface is calculated via a one-dimensional solution of the heat equation in cartesian or cylindrical coordinates. The latter is particularly useful for predicting the thermal response of electrical 

cables. 

For compartment linings, the “outside” surface is, by default, exposed to the exterior ambient 

temperature with convection and radiation calculated in a similar manner to the inside surface. 

The “outside” boundary condition can also be specified as a constant temperature (i.e., the outside 

surface can be at ambient temperature) or can be connected to the “outside” surface of part or all 

of a second compartment. For targets, the back surface is simply pointed in a direction opposite 

that of the front surface with convection and radiation calculated in a similar manner to the front 

surface. 

9.1 Compartment Ceiling, Wall, and Floor Temperature 

In the NIST/NRC and WTC tests, thermocouples and heat flux gauges were positioned at various 

locations on all four walls of the test compartments, plus on the ceilings and floors. Over the 

course of 15 experiments, a number of the thermocouples and gauges failed, but because over half 

of the measurement points were in roughly the same relative location to the fire, the faulty data was 

discarded based on examining replicate experiments or locations on the opposite wall. Table 9.1 

lists the measurement locations for each test. For each test, eight locations are used for comparison, 

two on the long (mainly north) wall, two on the short (east) wall, two on the floor, and two on the 

ceiling. Of the two locations for each panel, one is considered in the far-field, relatively remote 

from the fire; one is in the near-field, relatively close to the fire. How close or far varied from 

test to test, depending on the availability of working flux gauges. The two short wall locations are 

equally remote from the fire; thus, one location is in the lower layer, one in the upper. 

The WTC test measured ceiling temperatures, both at the surface and beneath a layer of mari91
 
Table 9.1: Wall thermocouple and heat flux gauge positions for the NIST/NRC series. The origin of 

the coordinate system lies on the floor in the southwest corner of the compartment. The designation 

“U” and “C” is irrelevant, and the last digit “2” indicates that the thermocouple is measuring the 

wall temperature rather than the heat flux gauge temperature. 

Name x y z Name x y z 

TC North U-1-2 3.85 7.04 1.49 TC South U-1-2 3.86 0 1.49 

TC North U-2-2 3.86 7.04 3.71 TC South U-2-2 3.86 0 3.82 

TC North U-3-2 9.48 7.04 1.86 TC South U-3-2 9.54 0 1.86 

TC North U-4-2 12.07 7.04 1.88 TC South U-4-2 12.08 0 1.86 

TC North U-5-2 17.69 7.04 1.49 TC South U-5-2 17.69 0 1.50 

TC North U-6-2 17.69 7.04 3.69 TC South U-6-2 17.74 0 3.70 

TC East U-1-2 21.66 1.52 1.12 TC West U-1-2 0 1.59 1.12 

TC East U-2-2 21.66 1.52 2.40 TC West U-2-2 0 1.59 2.42 

TC East U-3-2 21.66 5.68 1.13 TC West U-3-2 0 5.70 1.12 

TC East U-4-2 21.66 5.70 2.42 TC West U-4-2 0 5.70 2.42 

TC Floor U-1-2 3.08 3.51 0 TC Ceiling U-1-2 3.04 3.60 3.82 

TC Floor U-2-2 9.08 1.94 0 TC Ceiling C-2-2 8.99 2.00 3.82 

TC Floor U-3-2 9.06 5.97 0 TC Ceiling C-3-2 9.03 5.97 3.82 

TC Floor U-4-2 10.86 2.38 0 TC Ceiling C-4-2 10.79 2.38 3.82 

TC Floor C-5-2 10.93 5.20 0 TC Ceiling C-5-2 10.79 5.20 3.82 

TC Floor U-6-2 13.13 1.99 0 TC Ceiling C-6-2 13.00 2.07 3.82 

TC Floor U-7-2 13.00 5.92 0 TC Ceiling C-7-2 12.84 5.98 3.82 

TC Floor U-8-2 18.63 3.54 0 TC Ceiling U-8-2 18.71 3.54 3.82 

92
 
nite board. Table 9.2 below lists the coordinates of the measurement locations relative to the center 

of the fire pan. Names with “IN” appended are measurements made between two marinite boards 

which lined the compartment surfaces. 

Table 9.2: Locations of ceiling surface temperature measurements relative to the fire pan in the 

WTC series. 

Name x (m) y (m) z (m) 

TCC 0.62 0.07 3.82 

TCN3 0.62 0.67 3.82 

TCS3 0.62 -0.53 3.82 

TCE7 2.18 0.07 3.82 

TCW7 -1.15 0.07 3.82 

TCCIN 0.62 0.07 3.83 

TCN3IN 0.62 0.67 3.83 

TCS3IN 0.62 -0.53 3.83 

TCE4IN 1.28 0.07 3.83 

TCW4IN 0.05 0.07 3.83 

Figure 9.1 shows a comparison of predicted and measured values for total heat flux. Appendix 

B provides comparisons of heat flux and surface temperature on cable and surface targets. 

9.2 Target Temperature 

Target temperature and heat flux data are available from the NIST/NRC test series. In the NIST/NRC 

tests, the targets are different types of cables in various configurations: horizontal, vertical, in trays, 

or free-hanging. Since these tests are intended to represent electrical cables, they are modeled as 

cylindrical targets. Targets in the SP AST and WTC tests, intended to represent various components of the building structure, are modeled as normal thermally-thick targets in CFAST. 

The SP Adiabatic Surface Temperature Experiments included measurements of gas, plate thermometer, and steel temperatures for compartment and pool fire experiments conducted at SP, Sweden. Only the compartment fire experiments are included in the CFAST comparisons. Three 

additional experiments were conducted at SP, Sweden, in 2011, in which a 6 m long, 20 cm diameter vertical column was positioned in the middle of 1.1 m and 1.9 m diesel and 1.1 m heptane pool 

fires [79]. Gas, plate, and steel surface temperature measurements were made at heights of 1 m, 

2 m, 3 m, 4 m, and 5 m above the pool surface. At heights of 1 m, 3 m, and 5 m, these measurements were made at only one angular position. However, at 2 m and 4 m, the measurements were 

made at four positions. At these heights, two conventional plates thermometers were positioned 

approximately 10 cm from the column surface, along with two special plate thermometers (SPT) 

that were installed flush with the column surface. At each height, comparable predictions were 

made with CFAST using normal, thermally-thick targets. 

The compartment for the WTC experiments contained a hollow box column roughly 0.5 m 

from the fire pan, two trusses over the top of the pan, and one or two steel bars resting on the 

93
 
0 200 400 600 800 1000

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

Measured Temperature Rise (°C)

Predicted Temperature Rise (°C)

Surface Temperature (CFAST)

Exp. Rel. Std. Dev.: 0.07

Model Rel. Std. Dev.: 0.22

Model Bias Factor: 1.02

NIST/NRC Ceiling

NIST/NRC Floor

NIST/NRC Long Wall

NIST/NRC Short Wall

PRISME

WTC

Figure 9.1: Comparisons of Measured and Predicted Compartment Surface Temperature
 

94
 
0 200 400 600 800 1000

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

Measured Temperature Rise (°C)

Predicted Temperature Rise (°C)

Target Temperature (CFAST)

Exp. Rel. Std. Dev.: 0.07

Model Rel. Std. Dev.: 0.49

Model Bias Factor: 1.25

NIST/NRC

PRISME

SP AST

WTC

Figure 9.2: Comparisons of Measured and Predicted Target Temperature 

lower truss flanges. In Tests 1, 2 and 3, the steel was bare, and in Tests 4, 5 and 6, the steel was 

coated with various thicknesses of sprayed fire-resistive materials. The column was instrumented 

near its base (about 0.5 m from the floor, middle (1.5 m), and upper (2.5 m). Four measurements 

of steel (and insulation) temperatures were made at each location, for each of its four sides. These 

elements were modeled using thin sheet obstructions with a resolution of 10 cm. In addition to 

the steel structural elements, five cylinders (“slugs”) of nickel 200 (≥ 99 % nickel), 25.4 cm long 

and 10.2 cm in diameter, were positioned 50 cm north of the centerline in the WTC experiments. 

Slugs 1 through 5 were located 2.92 m, 1.82 m, 0.57 m, 0.05 m, and 1.56 m, respectively, from the 

longitudinal axis of the fire pan. All the slugs were 50 cm north of the lateral axis. The fire pan 

measured 2 m by 1 m. Four thermocouples were inserted into each slug at various locations. All 

four temperatures for each slug were virtually indistinguishable.Targets were modeled with normal 

thermally-thick targets in CFAST. 

Figure 9.2 shows a comparison of predicted and measured values for total heat flux. Appendix 

B provides comparisons of heat flux and surface temperature on cable and surface targets. 

95
 
96
 
 

Chapter 10 

Surface Heat Flux 

CFAST includes calculation of heat flux via convection, radiation, and conduction to compartment 

surfaces and targets. Heat transfer to the inside surface of compartment linings and the front and 

rear faces (as specified by the user) of targets consists of convection (through the use of empirical 

correlations) and radiation (calculated by the model using view factors for the fire, gas layers, and 

compartment surfaces). Heat conduction into a solid surface is calculated via a one-dimensional 

solution of the heat equation in cartesian or cylindrical coordinates. The latter is particularly useful 

for predicting the thermal response of electrical cables. 

For compartment linings, the “outside” surface is, by default, exposed to the exterior ambient 

temperature with convection and radiation calculated in a similar manner to the inside surface. 

The “outside” boundary condition can also be specified as a constant temperature (i.e., the outside 

surface can be at ambient temperature) or can be connected to the “outside” surface of part or all 

of a second compartment. For targets, the back surface is simply pointed in a direction opposite 

that of the front surface with convection and radiation calculated in a similar manner to the front 

surface. This chapter contains a variety of heat flux measurements, ranging from less than 1 kW/m2 

from very small gas burners to more than 100 kW/m2 in full-scale compartment fires. 

10.1	 Heat Flux to Compartment Ceiling, Wall, and Floor Surfaces 

In the NIST/NRC tests, heat flux gauges and thermocouples were positioned at various locations 

on the walls, floor, and ceiling of the fire compartments. The locations are given in Table 9.1. The 

heat flux gauges were not water cooled; thus, they measured the net rather than the gauge heat flux. 

However, the net heat flux is a function of the temperature of the heat flux gauge itself, which is 

not something that is modeled. To better compare model and measurement, the measured net heat 

flux is converted into a gauge heat flux using the following formula: 

ii ii

q ̇ = q ̇ +σ T 4 −T 4 +h T −T∞ kW/m2 (10.1) gauge net gauge ∞ gauge 

where σ = 5.67 ×10−11 kW/m2/K4 and h = 0.005 kW/m2/K. 

Also, over the course of 15 experiments, numerous heat flux gauges failed, most often due to 

loss of contact with the wall or faulty thermocouples. All of the measurements from Test 13 and 

97
 
16 were found to be flawed. 

In the WTC tests, there were a variety of heat flux gauges installed in the test compartment. 

Most were within 2 m of the fire. Their locations and orientations are listed in Table 10.1. This 

section contains the measurements at the floor and ceiling. 

Table 10.1: Heat flux gauge positions relative to the center of the fire pan in the WTC series. 

Name x (m) y (m) z (m) Orientation Location 

H2FU 0.64 0.63 3.30 +z Truss Support 

H2RU 0.64 0.51 3.30 +z Truss Support 

H2FD 0.64 0.30 3.15 −z Truss Support 

H2RD 0.64 0.42 3.15 −z Truss Support 

HCoHF -0.90 0.84 3.46 +x Column, facing fire 

HCoHW -0.97 0.92 3.27 +y Column, facing north 

HCoLF -0.90 0.84 0.92 +x Column, facing fire 

HCoLW -0.97 0.92 1.02 +y Column, facing north 

HF1 1.06 0.13 0.13 +z Floor 

HF2 1.56 0.10 0.13 +z Floor 

HCe1 -0.45 0.35 3.82 −z Ceiling 

HCe2 0.05 0.35 3.82 −z Ceiling 

HCe3 0.80 0.35 3.82 −z Ceiling 

HCe4 2.56 0.35 3.82 −z Ceiling 

Figure 10.1 shows a comparison of predicted and measured values for total heat flux. Appendix 

B provides comparisons of heat flux and surface temperature on cable and surface targets. 

10.2 Heat Flux to Targets 

In the NIST/NRC tests, cables in various types (power and control), and configurations (horizontal, 

vertical, in trays or free-hanging), were installed in the test compartment. For each of the four 

cable targets considered, measurements of the radiative and total heat flux were made with gauges 

positioned near the cables themselves. In the WTC tests, There were a variety of heat flux gauges 

installed in the test compartment. Most were within 2 m of the fire. Their locations and orientations 

are listed in Table 10.1. Figure 10.2 shows a comparison of predicted and measured values for 

total heat flux. Appendix B provides comparisons of heat flux and surface temperature on cable 

and surface targets. 

98
 
0 20 40 60 80 100 120

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Measured Heat Flux (kW/m2)

Predicted Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Surface Heat Flux (CFAST)

Exp. Rel. Std. Dev.: 0.11

Model Rel. Std. Dev.: 0.26

Model Bias Factor: 0.94

NIST/NRC Ceiling

NIST/NRC Floor

NIST/NRC Long Wall

NIST/NRC Short Wall

PRISME

WTC Ceiling

WTC Floor

Figure 10.1: Comparisons of Measured and Predicted Compartment Heat Flux to Surfaces
 

99
 
0 20 40 60 80 100 120

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Measured Heat Flux (kW/m2)

Predicted Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Target Heat Flux (CFAST)

Exp. Rel. Std. Dev.: 0.11

Model Rel. Std. Dev.: 0.63

Model Bias Factor: 0.99

Fleury Heat Flux

NIST/NRC

WTC

Figure 10.2: Comparisons of Measured and Predicted Heat Flux to Targets
 

100
 
Chapter 11 

Summary and Conclusions 

How to best quantify the comparisons between model predictions and experiments is not obvious. 

The necessary and perceived level of agreement for any variable is dependent upon both the typical 

use of the variable in a given simulation, the nature of the experiment, and the context of the 

comparison in relation to other comparisons being made. For instance, the user may be interested 

in the time it takes to reach a certain temperature in the room, but have little or no interest in peak 

temperature for experiments that quickly reach a steady-state value. Insufficient experimental data 

and understanding of how to compare the numerous variables in a complex fire model prevent a 

complete validation of the model. 

11.1 Summary of CFAST Model Uncertainty Statistics 

A true validation of a model would involve proper statistical treatment of all the inputs and outputs 

of the model with appropriate experimental data to allow comparisons over the full range of the 

model. Thus, the comparisons of the differences between model predictions and experimental data 

discussed here are intentionally simple and vary from test to test and from variable to variable 

due to the changing nature of the tests and typical use of different variables. Table 11.1 lists the 

summary statistics for the different quantities examined in this Guide. This is, for each quantity 

of interest, Table 11.1 lists the bias and relative standard deviation of the predicted values. It also 

lists the total number of experimental data sets on which these statistics are based, as well as the 

total number of point to point comparisons. Obviously, the more data sets and the more points, the 

more reliable the statistics. 

For further details about model uncertainty and the meaning of these statistics, see the Refs. 

[64, 51]. 

CFAST predictions in this validation study were consistent with numerous earlier studies, 

which show that the use of the model is appropriate over a range of conditions for a variety of 

fire scenarios. The CFAST model has been subjected to extensive evaluation studies by NIST and 

others (see, for example Ref. [51]and 2. Although differences between the model and the experiments were evident in these studies, most differences can be explained by limitations of the model 

and the experiments. Like all predictive models, the best predictions consider the limitations of the 

model and of the inputs provided to perform the calculations. 

101
 
Table 11.1: Summary statistics for all quantities of interest
 

Quantity Section Datasets Points σOE σOM Bias 

HGL Temperature 5.1 12 294 0.07 0.33 1.12 

HGL Temperature: Forced Ventilation 5.1 6 130 0.07 0.22 1.13 

HGL Temperature: Natural Ventilation 5.1 9 139 0.07 0.40 1.13 

HGL Temperature: No Ventilation 5.1 3 24 0.07 0.24 0.99 

HGL Depth 5.1 11 185 0.05 0.28 1.00 

HGL Depth: Open Compartments 5.1 8 108 0.05 0.18 0.91 

HGL Depth: Closed Compartments 5.1 4 34 0.05 0.24 1.45 

Ceiling Jet Temperature 6.3 10 412 0.07 0.42 1.06 

Plume Temperature 6.2 5 63 0.07 0.29 1.09 

Oxygen Concentration 7.1 5 60 0.08 0.28 1.09 

Carbon Dioxide Concentration 7.1 4 53 0.08 0.28 0.93 

Carbon Monoxide Concentration 7.1 2 24 0.19 0.75 1.76 

Smoke Concentration 7.2 1 15 0.19 0.68 3.42 

Compartment Over-Pressure 8 3 51 0.23 0.63 1.37 

Open Compartment Over-Pressure 8 3 16 0.23 0.56 1.32 

Target Temperature 9.2 4 414 0.07 0.49 1.25 

Surface Temperature 9.1 6 375 0.07 0.22 1.02 

Target Heat Flux 10.1 3 244 0.11 0.63 0.99 

Surface Heat Flux 10.2 7 241 0.11 0.26 0.94 

Smoke Detector Activation Time 6.4 1 142 0.34 0.39 1.77 

Sprinkler Activation Time 6.4 4 101 0.06 0.20 1.01 

102
 
 

11.2 Normality Tests 

The histograms on the following pages display the distribution of the quantity ln(M/E), where M 

is a random variable representing the Model prediction and E is a random variable representing 

the Experimental measurement. From the development of the statistics used to compare model and 

experimental values [64], ln(M/E) is assumed to be normally distributed. To test this assumption 

for each of the quantities of interest listed in Table 11.1, Spiegelhalter’s normality test has been 

applied [94]. This test examines a set of values, x1,..., xn whose mean and standard deviation are 

computed as follows: n n 1
 2

xi ;
 σ2 x ̄ =
 ∑ = ∑(xi −x ̄) (11.1)


n −1 i=1 i=1 

Spiegelhalter tests the null hypothesis that the sample xi is taken from a normally distributed population. The test statistic, S, is defined: 

n N −0.73n
 xi −x ̄ N = ∑

i =1

Z2 

i ln Zi 

2 S =
 √ ;
 ;
 Zi = (11.2)
 0.9 n
 σ

Under the null hypothesis, the test statistic is normally distributed with mean 0 and standard deviation of 1. If the p-value
 

p = 1 −

 

 

 

 

erf
 S
 

√

2

 

 

 

 

(11.3)
 

is less than 0.05, the null hypothesis is rejected. 

The flaw in most normality tests is that they tend to reject the assumption of normality when the 

number of samples is relatively large. As can be seen in some of the histograms on the following 

pages, some fairly “normal” looking distributions fail while decidedly non-normal distributions 

pass. For this reason, the p-value is less important than the qualitative appearance of the histogram. 

A best-fit Gaussian curve is also shown in the figures. If the histogram exhibits the typical bellshaped curve, this adds confidence to the statistical treatment of the data. If the histogram is not 

bell-shaped, this might cast doubt on the statistical treatment for that particular quantity. 

103
 
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Interval Number

Number of Data Points

HGL Temperature

Normality Test

p−value = 0.00

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

0

10

20

30

40

50

Interval Number

Number of Data Points

HGL Temperature: Forced Ventilation

Normality Test

p−value = 0.00

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Interval Number

Number of Data Points

HGL Temperature: Natural Ventilation

Normality Test

p−value = 0.02

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Interval Number

Number of Data Points

HGL Temperature: No Ventilation

Normality Test

p−value = 0.03

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Interval Number

Number of Data Points

HGL Depth

Normality Test

p−value = 0.01

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Interval Number

Number of Data Points

HGL Depth: Open Compartments

Normality Test

p−value = 0.00

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

0

5

10

15

Interval Number

Number of Data Points

HGL Depth: Closed Compartments

Normality Test

p−value = 0.25

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Interval Number

Number of Data Points

Ceiling Jet Temperature

Normality Test

p−value = 0.00

104
 
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Interval Number

Number of Data Points

Plume Temperature

Normality Test

p−value = 0.41

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Interval Number

Number of Data Points

Oxygen Concentration

Normality Test

p−value = 0.41

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

0

5

10

15

Interval Number

Number of Data Points

Carbon Dioxide Concentration

Normality Test

p−value = 0.69

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Interval Number

Number of Data Points

Carbon Monoxide Concentration

Normality Test

p−value = 0.35

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Interval Number

Number of Data Points

Smoke Concentration

Normality Test

p−value = 0.54

105
 
106
 
References 

[1] American Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania.	 ASTM E 

1355-04, Standard Guide for Evaluating the Predictive Capabilities of Deterministic Fire 

Models, 2004. vii, 1, 5, 15 

[2] R. L. Iman and J. C. Helton. An Investigation of Uncertainty and Sensitivity Analysis Techniques for Computer Models. Rick Analysis, 8(1):71–90, 1988. 5 

[3] R. D. Peacock, P. A. Reneke, C. L. Forney, and M. M. Kostreva.	 Issues in Evaluation of 

Complex Fire Models. Fire Safety Journal, 30:103–136, 1988. 6 

[4] A. Beard. Evaluation of Fire Models: Part I – Introduction. Fire Safety Journal, 19:295–306, 

1992. 6 

[5] K. A. Notarianni.	 The Role of Uncertainty in Improving Fire Protection Regulation. PhD 

thesis, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, 2000. 6 

[6] N. Khoudja. Procedures for Quantitative Sensitivity and Performance Validation of a Deterministic Fire Safety Model. PhD thesis, Texas A & M University, 1988. 6 

[7] G. E. P. Box, W. G. Hunter, and J. S. Hunter. Statistics for Experimenters, An Introduction to 

Design, Data Analysis and Model Building. John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1978. 6 

[8] C. Daniel.	 Applications of Statistics to Industrial Experimentation. John Wiley and Sons, 

New York, 1976. 6 

[9] A. M. Walker. Uncertainty Analysis of Zone Fire Models. Research Report 97/8, University 

of Canterbury, New Zealand, 1997. 6 

[10] N. A. Dempsey, P. J. Pagni, and R. B. Williamson. Compartment Fire Experiments: Comparison With Models. Fire Safety Journal, 25(3):187, 1995. 6 

[11] International Conference of Building Officials, Whittier, CA.	 1997 Uniform Building Code, 

1997. 6 

[12] W. M. Pitts, E. Braun, R. D. Peacock, H. E. Mitler, E. L. Johnsson, P. A. Reneke, and L. G. 

Blevins. Temperature Uncertainties for Bare-Bead and Aspirated Thermocouple Measurements in Fire Environments. In Thermal Measurements: The Foundation of Fire Standards, 

Special Technical Publication 1427, West Conshohocken, PA, 2001. American Society for 

Testing and Materials. 6, 8 

107
 
[13] Y. He and V. Beck.	 Smoke Spread Experiment in a Multi-Storey Building and Computer 

Modeling. Fire Safety Journal, 28(2):139, 1997. 6 

[14] M. Luo, Y. He, and V. Beck.	 Comparison of Existing Fire Model Predictions With Experimental Results From Real Fire Scenarios. Journal of Applied Fire Science, 6(4):357, 

1996/1997. 7 

[15] G. M. Poole, E. J. Weckman, and A. B. Strong. Fire Growth Rates in Structural Fires. NISTIR 

5499, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 1994. 7 

[16] J. Bailey and P. Tatem.	 Validation of Fire/Smoke Spread Model (CFAST) Using Ex-USS 

SHADWELL Internal Ship Conflagration Control (ISCC) Fire Tests. Technical Report 

NRL/MR/6180-95-7781, Naval Research Laboratory, 1995. 7 

[17] J. L. Bailey, P. A. Tatem, W. W. Jones, and G. P. Forney.	 Development of an Algorithm to 

Predict Vertical Heat Transfer Trough Ceiling/Floor Conduction. Fire Technology, 34(2):139, 

1998. 7 

[18] S. Deal.	 A Review of Four Compartment Fires with Four Compartment Fire Models. In 

Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Fire Retardant Chemicals Association, volume 

Fire Safety Developments and Testing, pages 33–51, Ponte Verde Beach, Florida, October 

21-24 1990. Fire Retardant Chemicals Association. 7 

[19] L. Y. Cooper and G. P. Forney.	 The Consolidated Compartment Fire Model (CCFM) Computer Application CCFM-VENTS – Part I: Physical Reference Guide. NISTIR 4342, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 1990. 7 

[20] H. E. Mitler and J. A. Rockett. Users’ Guide to FIRST, A Comprehensive Single-Room Fire 

Model. NBSIR 87-3595, National Institute of Standards and Technology, September 1987. 7 

[21] H. E. Nelson. FPETOOL: Fire Protection Engineering Tools for Hazard Estimation. NISTIR 

4380, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 1990. 7 

[22] W. W. Jones and R. D. Peacock. Technical Reference Guide for FAST Version 18. Technical 

Note 1262, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 1989. 7 

[23] K. Matsuyama, T. Wakamatsu, and K. Harada. Systematic Experiments of Room and Corridor Smoke Filling for Use in Calibration of Zone and CFD Fire Models. NISTIR 6588, 

National Institute of Standards and Technology, 2000. 7 

[24] W. D. Davis.	 Comparison of Algorithms to Calculate Plume Centerline Temperature and 

Ceiling Jet Temperature With Experiments. Journal of Fire Protection Engineering, 12:9, 

2002. 8, 80 

[25] W. W. Jones and R. D. Peacock. Refinement and Experimental Verification of a Model for 

Fire Growth and Smoke Transport. In T. Wakamatsu, Y. Hasemi, A. Sekizawa, P. G. Seeger, 

P. J. Pagni, and C. E. Grant, editors, Fire Safety Science. Proceedings. 2nd International 

Symposium, pages 897–906, Tokyo, Japan, June 13-17 1988. International Association for 

Fire Safety Science, Hemisphere Publishing Corporation. 8 

108
 
[26] R. S. Levine and H. E. Nelson.	 Full Scale Simulation of a Fatal Fire and Comparison of 

Results with Two Multiroom Models. NISTIR 90-4168, National Institute of Standards and 

Technology, 1990. 8, 12 

[27] D. Q. Duong. The Accuracy of Computer Fire Models: Some Comparisons with Experimental Data from Australia. Fire Safety Journal, 16:415, 1990. 8 

[28] T. Tanaka. Model of Multiroom Fire Spread.	 Fire Science and Technology, 3(2):105–121, 

1983. 8 

[29] W. Chow. Use of Zone Models on Simulating Compartmental Fires With Forced Ventilation. 

Fire and Materials, 14:466, 1995. 9 

[30] M. Luo. One Zone or Two Zones in the Room of Fire Origin During Fires?	 Journal of Fire 

Sciences, 15:240, 1997. 9 

[31] D. Madrzykowski and R. Vettori.	 A Sprinkler Fire Suppression Algorithm for the GSA 

Engineering Fire Assessment System. NISTIR 4833, National Institute of Standards and 

Technology, 1992. 9 

[32] W. Chow. Performance of Sprinkler in Atria. Journal of Fire Sciences, 14:466, 1996. 9 

[33] W. Chow.	 Predicability of Flashover by Zone Models. Journal of Fire Sciences, 16:335, 

September/October 1988. 9 

[34] M. Luo, Y. He, and V. Beck. Application of Field Model and Two-Zone Model to Flashover 

Fires in a Full-Scale Multi-Room Single Level Building. Fire Safety Journal, 29:1, 1997. 9 

[35] P. Collier.	 Fire in a Residential Building: Comparisons Between Experimental Data and a 

Fire Zone Model. Fire Technology, 32:195, August/September 1996. 10 

[36] D. White, C. Beyler, J. Scheffrey, and F. Williams. Modeling the Impact of Post-Flashover 

Shipboard Fires on Adjacent Spaces. Journal of Fire Protection Engineering, 10, 2000. 10 

[37] R. D. Peacock, P. A. Reneke, R. W. Bukowski, and V. Babrauskas.	 Defining Flashover for 

Fire Hazard Calculations. Fire Safety Journal, 32(4):331–345, 1999. 10 

[38] V. Babrauskas, R. D. Peacock, and P. A. Reneke. Defining Flashover for Fire Hazard Calculations: Part II. Fire Safety Journal, 38:613–622, 2003. 10 

[39] V. Babrauskas.	 Upholstered Furniture Room Fires–Measurements, Comparison with Furniture Calorimeter Data, and Flashover Predictions. Journal of Fire Sciences, 2(1):5–19, 

January/February 1984. 10, 44, 165 

[40] S. Deal and C. Beyler.	 Correlating Preflashover Room Fire Temperatures. Journal of Fire 

Protection Engineering, 2(2):33–48, 1990. 10 

[41] P. H. Thomas. Testing Products and Materials for Their Contribution to Flashover in Rooms. 

Fire and Materials, 5:103–111, 1981. 10 

109
 
[42] B. J. McCaffrey, J. G. Quintiere, and M. F. Harkleroad. Estimating Room Temperatures and 

the Likelihood of Flashover Using Fire Test Data Correlations. Fire Technology, 17(2):98– 

119, 1981. 10 

[43] B. Hagglund. Estimating Flashover Potential in Residential Rooms. FOA Rapport C 202369­  ̈

A3, Forsvarets Forkningsanstalt, 1980. 10 

[44] W. W. Jones. Multicompartment Model for the Spread of Fire, Smoke and Toxic Gases. Fire 

Safety Journal, 9(1):172, 1985. 12 

[45] J. A. Rockett and M. Morita. The NBS Harvard VI Multi-room Fire Simulation. Fire Science 

and Technology, 5(2):159–164, 1985. 12 

[46] R. W. Bukowski. Modeling a Backdraft Incident: The 62 Watts Street (New York) Fire. Fire 

Engineers Journal, 56(185):14–17, 1996. 12 

[47] W. Chow. Preliminary Studies of a Large Fire in Hong Kong. Journal of Applied Fire Science, 

6(3):243–268, 1996/1997. 12 

[48] R. W. Bukowski. Analysis of the Happyland Social Club Fire with HAZARD I.	 Fire and 

Arson Investigator, 42:36, 1992. 12 

[49] J. Floyd. Comparison of CFAST and FDS for Fire Simulation With the HDR T51 and T52 

Tests. NISTIR 6866, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 2002. 13 

[50] K.B. McGrattan, S. Hostikka, J.E. Floyd, H.R. Baum, and R.G. Rehm. Fire Dynamics Simulator (Version 5), Technical Reference Guide. NIST Special Publication 1018-5, National 

Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, Maryland, October 2007. 13 

[51] M.H. Salley and A. Lindeman. Verification and Validation of Selected Fire Models for Nuclear Power Plant Applications, Supplement 1. NUREG 1824, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Rockville, Maryland, 2015. 13, 31, 74, 101 

[52] G. Lui and W. Chow.	 A Short Note on Experimental Verification of Zone Models with an 

Electric Heater. International Journal on Engineering Performance-Based Fire Codes, 5:30, 

2003. 14 

[53] W. Chow. Studies on Closed Chamber Fires. Journal of Fire Sciences, 13:89, 1995. 14 

[54] W. Chow. Experimental Evaluation of the Zone Models CFAST, FAST and CCFM.VENTS. 

Journal of Applied Fire Science, 2:307, 1992-1993. 14 

[55] M. Altinakar, A. Weatherhill, and P. Nasch.	 Use of a Zone Model in Predicting Fire and 

Smoke Propagation in Tunnels. In J. R. Gillard, editor, 9th International Symposium on 

Aerodynamics and Ventilation of Vehicle Tunnels, pages 623–639, Aosta Valley, Italy, October 6-8 1997. BHR Group. 14 

110
 
[56] R. D. Peacock, J. D. Averill, D. Madrzykowski, D. W. Stroup, P. A. Reneke, and R. W. 

Bukowski. Fire Safety of Passenger Trains; Phase III: Evaluation of Fire Hazard Analysis 

Using Full-Scale Passenger Rail Car Tests. NISTIR 6563, National Institute of Standards and 

Technology, 2004. 14 

[57] J. Hoover and P. A. Tatem.	 Application of CFAST to Shipboard Fire Modeling. Part 3. 

Guidelines for Users. NRL/ML 6180-01-8550, Naval Research Laboratory, 2001. 14 

[58] R.D. Peacock, K.B. McGrattan, G.P. Forney, and P.A. Reneke. CFAST – Consolidated Fire 

And Smoke Transport (Version 7) Volume 1: Technical Reference Guide. Technical Note 

xxxx, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, Maryland, July 2015. 

18, 80, 85 

[59] H.W. Emmons and T. Tanaka. SFPE Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering, chapter Vent 

Flows. National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, Massachusetts, fourth edition, 2008. 

24 

[60] J. P. Holman. Heat Transfer. McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1990. 27 

[61] W. F. Moss and G. P. Forney.	 Implicitly coupling heat conduction into a zone fire model. 

NISTIR 4886, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 1992. 27 

[62] R.L.P. Custer, B.J. Meacham, and R.P. Schifiliti.	 SFPE Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering, chapter Design of Detection Systems. National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, 

Massachusetts, fourth edition, 2008. 28 

[63] D. D. Evans. Sprinkler Fire Suppression for HAZARD. NISTIR 5254, National Institute of 

Standards and Technology, 1993. 29 

[64] K.B. McGrattan, S. Hostikka, R. McDermott, J.E. Floyd, C. Weinschenk, and K. Overholt. 

Fire Dynamics Simulator, Technical Reference Guide, Volume 3: Validation. NIST Special 

Publication 1018 Sixth Edition, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, Maryland, September 2014. 31, 101, 103 

[65] D.T. Sheppard and B.W. Klein. Burn Tests in Two Story Structure with Hallways. Technical 

report, ATF Laboratories, Ammendale, Maryland, 2009. 34 

[66] R. Fleury. Evaluation of Thermal Radiation Models for Fire Spread Between Objects. Master’s thesis, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand, 2010. 34 

[67] G. Heskestad and J. P. Hill.	 Experimental Fires in Multiroom/Corridor Enclosures. NBSGCR 86-502, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 1986. 34, 35, 131 

[68] R. D. Peacock, S. Davis, and B. T. Lee. Experimental Data Set for the Accuracy Assessment 

of Room Fire Models. NBSIR 88-3752, National Bureau of Standards, 1988. 34, 48, 131, 

169 

111
 
[69] S.P. Nowlen.	 Enclosure Environment Characterization Testing for the Baseline Validation 

of Computer Fire Simulation Codes. NUREG/CR-4681 (SAND86-1296), Sandia National 

Laboratory, Albuqueque, New Mexico, March 1987. Work performed under contract to the 

US Nuclear Regulatory Agency, Washington DC. 36, 136 

[70] J.M. Chavez and S.P. Nowlen.	 An Experimental Investigation of Internally Ignited Fires 

in Nuclear Power Plant Control Cabinets, Part II: Room Effects Tests. NUREG/CR-4527 

(SAND86-0336), Sandia National Laboratory, Albuqueque, New Mexico, November 1988. 

Work performed under contract to the US Nuclear Regulatory Agency, Washington DC. 36, 

136 

[71] W. Klein-Helβling and M. Rowenkamp. Evaluation of Fire Models for Nuclear Power  ̈

Plant Applications: Fuel Pool Fire Inside a Compartment. Technical report, Gesellschaft 

fur Anlagen-und Reaktorsicherheit (GRS), K  ̈ oln, Germany, May 2005.  ̈ 41, 148 

[72] O. Riese and D. Hosser.	 Evaluation of Fire Model for Nuclear Power Plant Applications: 

Flame SPread in Cable Tray Fires. Draft Version Revision 1, Gesellschaft fur Anlagen-und  ̈

Reaktorsicherheit (GRS), June 2004. 41, 148 

[73] K.L. Foote. 1986 LLNL Enclosure Fire Tests Data Report. Technical Report UCID-21236, 

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, August 1987. 44 

[74] B. T. Lee.	 Effect of Wall and Room Surfaces on the Rates of Heat, Smoke, and Carbon 

Monoxide Production in a Park Lodging Bedroom Fire. NBSIR 85-2998, National Bureau 

of Standards, 1985. 44, 165 

[75] A. Hamins, A. Maranghides, E. L. Johnsson, M. K. Donnelly, J. C. Yang, G. W. Mullholland, and R. L. Anleitner. Report of Experimental Results for the International Fire Model 

Benchmarking and Validation Exercise #3. Special Publication 1013-1, National Institute of 

Standards and Technology, 2005. 48, 49, 175 

[76] R.W. Bukowski, R.D. Peacock, J.D. Averill, T.G. Cleary, N.P. Bryner, W.D. Walton, P.A. 

Reneke, and E.D. Kuligowski. Performance of Home Smoke Alarms Analysis of the Response of Several Available Technologies in Residential Fire Settings. NIST Technical Note 

1455-1, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, Maryland, February 

2008. 53 

[77] L. Audouin, L. Rigollet, H. Pretrel, W. LeSaux, and M. R  ́	 owekamp. OECD PRISME project:  ̈

Fires in confined and ventilated nuclear-type multi-compartments–Overview and main experimental results. Fire Safety Journal, 62:80–101, 2013. 55 

[78] U. Wickstrom, R. Jansson, and H. Tuovinen. Verification fire tests on using the adiabatic  ̈

surface temperature for predicting heat transfer. Technical Report 2009:19, SP Technical 

Research Institute of Sweden, Boras, Sweden, 2009.  ̊ 56 

[79] J. Sjostr  ̈ om, A. Bystr  ̈ om, and U. Wickstr  ̈ om. Large scale test on thermal exposure to steel  ̈

column exposed to pool fires. Technical Report 2012:04, SP Technical Research Institute of 

Sweden, Boras, Sweden, 2012. ISBN: 978-91-87017-21-6.  ̊ 56, 93, 269 

112
 
[80] K. D Steckler, J. G. Quintiere, and W. J. Rinkinen. Flow Induced by Fire in a Compartment. 

NBSIR 82-2520, National Bureau of Standards, 1982. 56, 271 

[81] D.T. Sheppard and D.R. Steppan. Sprinkler, Heat & Smoke Vent, Draft Curtain Project – 

Phase 1 Scoping Tests. Technical report, Underwriters Laboratories, Northbrook, Illinois, 

May 1997. 58, 62 

[82] K.M. Opert. Assesment of Natural Vertical Ventilation for Smoke and Hot Gas Layer Control 

in a Residential Scale Structure. Master’s thesis, University of Maryland, 2012. 63 

[83] J. E. Gott, D. L. Lowe, K. A. Notarianni, and W. D. Davis. Analysis of High Bay Hangar 

Facilities for Fire Detector Sensitivity and Placement. Technical Note 1423, National Institute 

of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, Maryland, February 1997. 64 

[84] W. D. Davis, K. A. Notarianni, and P. Z. Tapper.	 An Algorithm for Calculating the Plume 

Centerline Temperature in the Presence of a Hot Upper Layer. Journal of Fire Protection 

Engineering, 10(3):23–31, 2000. 64 

[85] R. Vettori. Effect of an Obstructed Ceiling on the Activation Time of a Residential Sprinkler. NISTIR 6253, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, Maryland, 

November 1998. 65 

[86] S. Hostikka, M. Kokkala, and J. Vaari.	 Experimental Study of the Localized Room Fires, 

NFDC2 Test Series. VTT Research Notes 2104, VTT Building and Transport, 2001. 65, 296 

[87] A. Tewarson. Generation of Heat and Chemical Compounds in Fires. In P. J. DiNenno, 

D. Drysdale, C. L. Beyler, and W. D. Walton, editors, SFPE Handbook of Fire Protection 

Engineering, chapter 4-3. National Fire Protection Association and The Society of Fire Protection Engineers, Quincy, MA, 3rd edition, 2003. 67 

[88] A. Hamins, A. Maranghides, K.B. McGrattan, E. Johnsson, T. Ohlemiller, M. Donnelly, 

J. Yang, G. Mulholland, K. Prasad, S. Kukuck, R. Anleitner, and T. McAllister. Federal 

Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster: Experiments and 

Modeling of Structural Steel Elements Exposed to Fire. NIST NCSTAR 1-5B, National 

Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, Maryland, September 2005. 70 

[89] M.L. Janssens and H.C. Tran.	 Data Reduction of Room Tests for Zone Model Validation. 

Journal of Fire Sciences, 10:528–555, 1992. 74, 115 

[90] K.B. McGrattan and G. P. Forney. Fire Dynamics Simulator (Version 4), User’s Guide. NISTIR 7013, National Institute of Standards and Technology, June 2003. 74 

[91] R.L. Alpert.	 SFPE Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering, chapter Ceiling Jet Flows. 

National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, Massachusetts, fourth edition, 2008. 79, 80 

[92] N. Iqbal and M.H. Salley.	 Fire Dynamics Tools (FDTs), Quantitative Fire Hazard Analysis 

Methods for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Fire Protection Inspection Program. 

NUREG 1805, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, Rockville, MD, 2004. 81 

113
 
[93] G. Heskestad and H. F. Smith. Investigation of a New Sprinkler Sensitivity Approval Test: the 

Plunge Test. Technical Report 22485 2937, Factory Mutual Research Corporation, Norwood, 

MA, 1976. 81 

[94] D. J. Spiegelhalter. Diagnostic test of distributional shape. Biometrika, 70(2):401–409, 1983. 

103 

[95] K.B. McGrattan, S. Hostikka, J.E. Floyd, H.R. Baum, and R.G. Rehm. Fire Dynamics Simulator, Technical Reference Guide, Volume 1: Mathematical Model. NIST Special Publication 

1018-1, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, Maryland, 2015. 115 

[96] Y. He, A. Fernando, and M. Luo. Determination of Interface Height from Measured Parameter Profile in Encolsure Fire Experiment. Fire Safety Journal, 31:19–38, 1998. 115 

[97] Fire Modeling Code Comparison.	 TR 108875, Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), 

Palo Alto, CA. 169 

114
 
 

 

 

Appendix A 

Calculation of Layer Height and the 

Average Upper and Lower Layer 

Temperatures 

Fire protection engineers often need to estimate the location of the interface between the hot, 

smoke-laden upper layer and the cooler lower layer in a burning compartment. Zone fire models 

such as CFAST compute this quantity directly, along with the average temperature of the upper 

and lower layers. In an experimental test or a computational fluid dynamics (CFD) model like FDS 

[95], there are not two distinct zones, but rather a continuous profile of temperature. Nevertheless, 

methods have been developed to estimate layer height and average temperatures from a continuous 

vertical profile of temperature. One such method [89] is as follows: Consider a continuous function 

T (z) defining temperature T as a function of height above the floor z, where z = 0 is the floor and 

z = H is the ceiling. Define Tu as the upper layer temperature, Tl as the lower layer temperature, 

and zint as the interface height. Compute the quantities: 

H 

(H −zint ) Tu +zint Tl = T (z) dz = I1 (A.1)

0 

H 1 1 1 (H −zint ) +zint = dz = I2 (A.2) Tu Tl 0 T (z)
 

Solve for zint :
 

Tl(I1 I2 −H2)

zint = (A.3) I1 +I2 Tl 

2 −2Tl H 

Let Tl be the temperature in the lowest mesh cell or lowest measurement point and, using 

Simpson’s Rule, perform the numerical integration of I1 and I2. Tu is defined as the average upper 

layer temperature via 

H 

(H −zint ) Tu = T (z) dz (A.4) 

zint 

For experimental test data or CFD model output, the integral function of temperature as a 

function of height can be estimated empirically from a number of discrete data points. Further 

discussion of similar procedures can be found in Ref. [96]. 

115
 
116
 
Appendix B 

Summary of Verification Results 

This appendix summarizes the accuracy of results from cases in the CFAST verification suite. 

These metrics are an integral part of a process known as regression testing, which aims to evaluate 

the accuracy of output predicted by a numerical software package. The results from this appendix 

can be compared to another version of CFAST as a way of measuring the quality of results between 

revisions. These statistical metrics also help determine the impact of code additions on the overall 

accuracy of CFAST and can help identify errors in the CFAST source code. 

117
 
Table B.1: Summary of Verification Results
 

Case Name Expected 

Value 

Predicted 

Value 

Type of 

Error 

Error Error 

Tolerance 

Within 

Tol. 

Energy Balance 8.25e+02 8.24e+02 Relative 4.09e-04 1.00e-01 Yes 

Energy Balance 2.90e+05 2.90e+05 Relative 7.00e-05 1.00e-01 Yes 

Energy Balance 8.25e+02 8.24e+02 Relative 5.38e-04 1.00e-01 Yes 

Energy Balance 2.90e+05 2.90e+05 Relative 7.00e-05 1.00e-01 Yes 

Energy Balance 5.00e+00 5.00e+00 Relative 4.00e-11 1.00e-01 Yes 

Energy Balance 5.00e+00 5.00e+00 Relative 4.00e-11 1.00e-01 Yes 

Energy Balance 1.73e+03 1.73e+03 Relative 4.71e-07 1.00e-01 Yes 

Energy Balance 5.00e+00 5.00e+00 Relative 2.45e-04 1.00e-01 Yes 

Energy Balance 5.00e+00 5.00e+00 Relative 2.47e-04 1.00e-01 Yes 

Energy Balance 5.00e+00 5.00e+00 Relative 3.46e-04 1.00e-01 Yes 

Energy Balance 5.00e+00 5.00e+00 Relative 3.60e-04 1.00e-01 Yes 

Mass Balance 1.81e-02 1.81e-02 Relative 1.44e-03 1.00e-01 Yes 

Mass Balance 1.48e-02 1.48e-02 Relative 7.42e-04 1.00e-01 Yes 

Mass Balance 1.81e-02 1.81e-02 Relative 1.66e-03 1.00e-01 Yes 

Mass Balance 1.48e-02 1.48e-02 Relative 9.44e-04 1.00e-01 Yes 

Mass Balance 1.81e-02 1.81e-02 Relative 1.49e-03 1.00e-01 Yes 

Mass Balance 1.48e-02 1.48e-02 Relative 8.77e-04 1.00e-01 Yes 

Mass Balance 1.81e-02 1.81e-02 Relative 5.30e-04 1.00e-01 Yes 

Mass Balance 1.48e-02 1.48e-02 Relative 8.81e-05 1.00e-01 Yes 

Mass Balance 9.05e-03 9.04e-03 Relative 1.98e-03 1.00e-01 Yes 

Mass Balance 7.41e-03 7.40e-03 Relative 1.32e-03 1.00e-01 Yes 

Mass Balance 6.04e-03 5.64e-03 Relative 6.47e-02 1.00e-01 Yes 

Mass Balance 4.94e-03 4.62e-03 Relative 6.41e-02 1.00e-01 Yes 

Mass Balance 4.53e-03 4.21e-03 Relative 6.91e-02 1.00e-01 Yes 

Mass Balance 3.71e-03 3.45e-03 Relative 6.85e-02 1.00e-01 Yes 

Mass Balance 5.94e+00 5.98e+00 Relative 6.17e-03 1.00e-01 Yes 

Mass Balance 2.07e+03 2.07e+03 Relative 1.20e-04 1.00e-01 Yes 

Ventilation 1.10e+04 1.10e+04 Relative 2.10e-03 1.00e-01 Yes 

Ventilation 1.00e-12 1.00e-12 Relative 0.00e+00 1.00e-01 Yes 

Ventilation 2.23e+01 2.29e+01 Relative 2.70e-02 1.00e-01 Yes 

Ventilation 3.32e+04 3.44e+04 Relative 3.33e-02 1.00e-01 Yes 

Heat Transfer 4.31e+00 4.26e+00 Relative 1.35e-02 1.00e-01 Yes 

Heat Transfer 4.80e+02 4.80e+02 Relative 2.08e-12 1.00e-01 Yes 

Heat Transfer 4.79e+02 4.80e+02 Relative 2.09e-03 1.00e-01 Yes 

Heat Transfer 4.80e+02 4.80e+02 Relative 7.82e-08 1.00e-01 Yes 

Sprinkler 1.15e+02 1.16e+02 Relative 3.04e-03 1.00e-01 Yes 

Sprinkler 9.76e+03 9.83e+03 Relative 7.16e-03 1.00e-01 Yes 

118
 
Appendix C 

Transient Model / Experiment Comparison 

Graphs 

This appendix contains a series of plots of experimental measurements and model predictions for 

each of the individual comparisons included in the scatter plots in Chapters 5 through 10 in this 

report. 

C.1 ATF Corridors 

The ATF Corridors experiments consisted of two corridors one on top of the other and connected 

by a stairwell. The fire, a natural gas sand burner, was located on the first level at the end of the 

corridor away from the stairwell. The corridor was closed at this end, and open at the same position 

on the second level. Two-way flow occurred on both levels because make-up air flowed from the 

opening on the second level down the stairs to the first. The only opening to the enclosure was the 

open end of the second-level corridor. 

Temperatures were measured with seven thermocouple trees. Tree A was located fairly close 

to the fire on the first level. Tree B was located halfway down the first-level corridor. Tree C was 

close to the stairwell entrance on the first level. Tree D was located in the doorway of the stairwell 

on the first level. Tree E was located roughly along the vertical centerline of the stairwell. Tree F 

was located near the stairwell opening on the second level. Tree G was located near the exit at the 

other end of the second-level corridor. The graphs on the following pages show the top and bottom 

TC from each tree for the given fire sizes of 50 kW, 100 kW, 250 kW, 500 kW, and a mixed HRR 

“pulsed” fire. 

HGL temperature and depth reductions were carried out using three arrays of thermocouples in 

the lower corridor (Trees A, B, and C) and two arrays in the upper corridor (Trees G and H). Ceiling 

jet temperatures were compared using the top thermocouple in the three downstairs thermocouple 

trees (Trees A, B, and C). Since CFAST only computes ceiling jet temperatures in compartments 

with a fire, no comparisons were made for the upper compartment. 

119
 
0 5 10 15 20

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

ATF Corridors, 50 kW, HGL Temperature

Exp (T_Upper)

CFAST (ULT_1)

0 5 10 15 20

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Time (min)

Height (m)

ATF Corridors, 50 kW, Layer Height

Exp(Height)

CFAST (HGT_1)

0 5 10 15 20

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

ATF Corridors, 50 kW, HGL Temperature

Exp (T_Upper)

CFAST (ULT_3)

0 5 10 15 20

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Time (min)

Height (m)

ATF Corridors, 50 kW, Layer Height

Exp(Height)

CFAST (HGT_3)

0 5 10 15 20

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

ATF Corridors, 100 kW, HGL Temperature

Exp (T_Upper)

CFAST (ULT_1)

0 5 10 15 20

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Time (min)

Height (m)

ATF Corridors, 100 kW, Layer Height

Exp(Height)

CFAST (HGT_1)

120
 
0 5 10 15 20

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

ATF Corridors, 100 kW, HGL Temperature

Exp (T_Upper)

CFAST (ULT_3)

0 5 10 15 20

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Time (min)

Height (m)

ATF Corridors, 100 kW, Layer Height

Exp(Height)

CFAST (HGT_3)

0 5 10 15 20

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

ATF Corridors, 240 kW, HGL Temperature

Exp (T_Upper)

CFAST (ULT_1)

0 5 10 15 20

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Time (min)

Height (m)

ATF Corridors, 240 kW, Layer Height

Exp(Height)

CFAST (HGT_1)

0 5 10 15 20

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

ATF Corridors, 240 kW, HGL Temperature

Exp (T_Upper)

CFAST (ULT_3)

0 5 10 15 20

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Time (min)

Height (m)

ATF Corridors, 2400 kW, Layer Height

Exp(Height)

CFAST (HGT_3)

121
 
0 5 10 15 20

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

ATF Corridors, 250 kW, HGL Temperature

Exp (T_Upper)

CFAST (ULT_1)

0 5 10 15 20

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Time (min)

Height (m)

ATF Corridors, 250 kW, Layer Height

Exp(Height)

CFAST (HGT_1)

0 5 10 15 20

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

ATF Corridors, 250 kW, HGL Temperature

Exp (T_Upper)

CFAST (ULT_3)

0 5 10 15 20

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Time (min)

Height (m)

ATF Corridors, 250 kW, Layer Height

Exp(Height)

CFAST (HGT_3)

0 5 10 15 20

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

ATF Corridors, 500 kW, HGL Temperature

Exp (T_Upper)

CFAST (ULT_1)

0 5 10 15 20

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Time (min)

Height (m)

ATF Corridors, 500 kW, Layer Height

Exp(Height)

CFAST (HGT_1)

122
 
0 5 10 15 20

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

ATF Corridors, 500 kW, HGL Temperature

Exp (T_Upper)

CFAST (ULT_3)

0 5 10 15 20

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Time (min)

Height (m)

ATF Corridors, 500 kW, Layer Height

Exp(Height)

CFAST (HGT_3)

0 5 10 15 20

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

ATF Corridors, Pulse, HGL Temperature

Exp (T_Upper)

CFAST (ULT_1)

0 5 10 15 20

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Time (min)

Height (m)

ATF Corridors, Pulse, Layer Height

Exp(Height)

CFAST (HGT_1)

0 5 10 15 20

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

ATF Corridors, Pulse, HGL Temperature

Exp (T_Upper)

CFAST (ULT_3)

0 5 10 15 20

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Time (min)

Height (m)

ATF Corridors, Pulse, Layer Height

Exp(Height)

CFAST (HGT_3)

123
 
0 5 10 15 20

0

100

200

300

400

500

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

ATF Corridors, 50 kW, Ceiling Jet

Exp (TC_A10)

Exp (TC_B10)

Exp (TC_C10)

CFAST (Detector 1)

CFAST (Detector 2)

CFAST (Detector 3)

0 5 10 15 20

0

100

200

300

400

500

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

ATF Corridors, 100 kW, Ceiling Jet

Exp (TC_A10)

Exp (TC_B10)

Exp (TC_C10)

CFAST (Detector 1)

CFAST (Detector 2)

CFAST (Detector 3)

0 5 10 15 20

0

100

200

300

400

500

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

ATF Corridors, 240 kW, Ceiling Jet

Exp (TC_A10)

Exp (TC_B10)

Exp (TC_C10)

CFAST (Detector 1)

CFAST (Detector 2)

CFAST (Detector 3)

0 5 10 15 20

0

100

200

300

400

500

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

ATF Corridors, 250 kW, Ceiling Jet

Exp (TC_A10)

Exp (TC_B10)

Exp (TC_C10)

CFAST (Detector 1)

CFAST (Detector 2)

CFAST (Detector 3)

0 5 10 15 20

0

100

200

300

400

500

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

ATF Corridors, 500 kW, Ceiling Jet

Exp (TC_A10)

Exp (TC_B10)

Exp (TC_C10)

CFAST (Detector 1)

CFAST (Detector 2)

CFAST (Detector 3)

0 5 10 15 20

0

100

200

300

400

500

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

ATF Corridors, Pulse, Ceiling Jet

Exp (TC_A10)

Exp (TC_B10)

Exp (TC_C10)

CFAST (Detector 1)

CFAST (Detector 2)

CFAST (Detector 3)

124
 
C.2 Fleury Experiments 

The plots on the following pages contain comparisons of predicted and measured heat fluxes from 

a series of propane burner fires. Heat flux gauges were mounted on moveable dollies that were 

placed in front of, and to the side of, burners with dimensions of 0.3 m by 0.3 m (1:1 burner), 

0.6 m by 0.3 m (2:1 burner), and 0.9 m by 0.3 m (3:1 burner). The heat release rates were set to 

100 kW, 150 kW, 200 kW, 250 kW, and 300 kW. The gauges were mounted at heights of 0 m, 

0.5 m, 1.0 m, and 1.5 m relative to the top edge of the burner. Each page contains the results for a 

given HRR. 

125
 
0.5 1 1.5 2

0

2

4

6

8

10

Distance (m)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Fleury Heat Flux, 100 kW, Front, 1:1 Burner

Exp (0.0 m)

Exp (0.5 m)

Exp (1.0 m)

Exp (1.5 m)

CFAST (0.0 m)

CFAST (0.5 m)

CFAST (1.0 m)

CFAST (1.5 m)

0.5 1 1.5 2

0

2

4

6

8

10

Distance (m)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Fleury Heat Flux, 100 kW, Side, 1:1 Burner

Exp (0.0 m)

Exp (0.5 m)

Exp (1.0 m)

Exp (1.5 m)

CFAST (0.0 m)

CFAST (0.5 m)

CFAST (1.0 m)

CFAST (1.5 m)

0.5 1 1.5 2

0

2

4

6

8

10

Distance (m)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Fleury Heat Flux, 100 kW, Front, 2:1 Burner

Exp (0.0 m)

Exp (0.5 m)

Exp (1.0 m)

Exp (1.5 m)

CFAST (0.0 m)

CFAST (0.5 m)

CFAST (1.0 m)

CFAST (1.5 m)

0.5 1 1.5 2

0

2

4

6

8

10

Distance (m)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Fleury Heat Flux, 100 kW, Side, 2:1 Burner

Exp (0.0 m)

Exp (0.5 m)

Exp (1.0 m)

Exp (1.5 m)

CFAST (0.0 m)

CFAST (0.5 m)

CFAST (1.0 m)

CFAST (1.5 m)

0.5 1 1.5 2

0

2

4

6

8

10

Distance (m)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Fleury Heat Flux, 100 kW, Front, 3:1 Burner

Exp (0.0 m)

Exp (0.5 m)

Exp (1.0 m)

Exp (1.5 m)

CFAST (0.0 m)

CFAST (0.5 m)

CFAST (1.0 m)

CFAST (1.5 m)

0.5 1 1.5 2

0

2

4

6

8

10

Distance (m)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Fleury Heat Flux, 100 kW, Side, 3:1 Burner

Exp (0.0 m)

Exp (0.5 m)

Exp (1.0 m)

Exp (1.5 m)

CFAST (0.0 m)

CFAST (0.5 m)

CFAST (1.0 m)

CFAST (1.5 m)

Figure C.1: Comparison of predicted (lines) and measured (circles) heat flux for the 100 kW Fleury 

fires. 

126 
0.5 1 1.5 2

0

5

10

15

Distance (m)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Fleury Heat Flux, 150 kW, Front, 1:1 Burner

Exp (0.0 m)

Exp (0.5 m)

Exp (1.0 m)

Exp (1.5 m)

CFAST (0.0 m)

CFAST (0.5 m)

CFAST (1.0 m)

CFAST (1.5 m)

0.5 1 1.5 2

0

5

10

15

Distance (m)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Fleury Heat Flux, 150 kW, Side, 1:1 Burner

Exp (0.0 m)

Exp (0.5 m)

Exp (1.0 m)

Exp (1.5 m)

CFAST (0.0 m)

CFAST (0.5 m)

CFAST (1.0 m)

CFAST (1.5 m)

0.5 1 1.5 2

0

5

10

15

Distance (m)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Fleury Heat Flux, 150 kW, Front, 2:1 Burner

Exp (0.0 m)

Exp (0.5 m)

Exp (1.0 m)

Exp (1.5 m)

CFAST (0.0 m)

CFAST (0.5 m)

CFAST (1.0 m)

CFAST (1.5 m)

0.5 1 1.5 2

0

5

10

15

Distance (m)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Fleury Heat Flux, 150 kW, Side, 2:1 Burner

Exp (0.0 m)

Exp (0.5 m)

Exp (1.0 m)

Exp (1.5 m)

CFAST (0.0 m)

CFAST (0.5 m)

CFAST (1.0 m)

CFAST (1.5 m)

0.5 1 1.5 2

0

5

10

15

Distance (m)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Fleury Heat Flux, 150 kW, Front, 3:1 Burner

Exp (0.0 m)

Exp (0.5 m)

Exp (1.0 m)

Exp (1.5 m)

CFAST (0.0 m)

CFAST (0.5 m)

CFAST (1.0 m)

CFAST (1.5 m)

0.5 1 1.5 2

0

5

10

15

Distance (m)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Fleury Heat Flux, 150 kW, Side, 3:1 Burner

Exp (0.0 m)

Exp (0.5 m)

Exp (1.0 m)

Exp (1.5 m)

CFAST (0.0 m)

CFAST (0.5 m)

CFAST (1.0 m)

CFAST (1.5 m)

Figure C.2: Comparison of predicted (lines) and measured (circles) heat flux for the 150 kW Fleury 

fires. 

127 
0.5 1 1.5 2

0

5

10

15

20

Distance (m)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Fleury Heat Flux, 200 kW, Front, 1:1 Burner

Exp (0.0 m)

Exp (0.5 m)

Exp (1.0 m)

Exp (1.5 m)

CFAST (0.0 m)

CFAST (0.5 m)

CFAST (1.0 m)

CFAST (1.5 m)

0.5 1 1.5 2

0

5

10

15

20

Distance (m)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Fleury Heat Flux, 200 kW, Side, 1:1 Burner

Exp (0.0 m)

Exp (0.5 m)

Exp (1.0 m)

Exp (1.5 m)

CFAST (0.0 m)

CFAST (0.5 m)

CFAST (1.0 m)

CFAST (1.5 m)

0.5 1 1.5 2

0

5

10

15

20

Distance (m)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Fleury Heat Flux, 200 kW, Front, 2:1 Burner

Exp (0.0 m)

Exp (0.5 m)

Exp (1.0 m)

Exp (1.5 m)

CFAST (0.0 m)

CFAST (0.5 m)

CFAST (1.0 m)

CFAST (1.5 m)

0.5 1 1.5 2

0

5

10

15

20

Distance (m)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Fleury Heat Flux, 200 kW, Side, 2:1 Burner

Exp (0.0 m)

Exp (0.5 m)

Exp (1.0 m)

Exp (1.5 m)

CFAST (0.0 m)

CFAST (0.5 m)

CFAST (1.0 m)

CFAST (1.5 m)

0.5 1 1.5 2

0

5

10

15

20

Distance (m)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Fleury Heat Flux, 200 kW, Front, 3:1 Burner

Exp (0.0 m)

Exp (0.5 m)

Exp (1.0 m)

Exp (1.5 m)

CFAST (0.0 m)

CFAST (0.5 m)

CFAST (1.0 m)

CFAST (1.5 m)

0.5 1 1.5 2

0

5

10

15

20

Distance (m)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Fleury Heat Flux, 200 kW, Side, 3:1 Burner

Exp (0.0 m)

Exp (0.5 m)

Exp (1.0 m)

Exp (1.5 m)

CFAST (0.0 m)

CFAST (0.5 m)

CFAST (1.0 m)

CFAST (1.5 m)

Figure C.3: Comparison of predicted (lines) and measured (circles) heat flux for the 200 kW Fleury 

fires. 

128 
0.5 1 1.5 2

0

5

10

15

20

25

Distance (m)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Fleury Heat Flux, 250 kW, Front, 1:1 Burner

Exp (0.0 m)

Exp (0.5 m)

Exp (1.0 m)

Exp (1.5 m)

CFAST (0.0 m)

CFAST (0.5 m)

CFAST (1.0 m)

CFAST (1.5 m)

0.5 1 1.5 2

0

5

10

15

20

25

Distance (m)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Fleury Heat Flux, 250 kW, Side, 1:1 Burner

Exp (0.0 m)

Exp (0.5 m)

Exp (1.0 m)

Exp (1.5 m)

CFAST (0.0 m)

CFAST (0.5 m)

CFAST (1.0 m)

CFAST (1.5 m)

0.5 1 1.5 2

0

5

10

15

20

25

Distance (m)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Fleury Heat Flux, 250 kW, Front, 2:1 Burner

Exp (0.0 m)

Exp (0.5 m)

Exp (1.0 m)

Exp (1.5 m)

CFAST (0.0 m)

CFAST (0.5 m)

CFAST (1.0 m)

CFAST (1.5 m)

0.5 1 1.5 2

0

5

10

15

20

25

Distance (m)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Fleury Heat Flux, 250 kW, Side, 2:1 Burner

Exp (0.0 m)

Exp (0.5 m)

Exp (1.0 m)

Exp (1.5 m)

CFAST (0.0 m)

CFAST (0.5 m)

CFAST (1.0 m)

CFAST (1.5 m)

0.5 1 1.5 2

0

5

10

15

20

25

Distance (m)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Fleury Heat Flux, 250 kW, Front, 3:1 Burner

Exp (0.0 m)

Exp (0.5 m)

Exp (1.0 m)

Exp (1.5 m)

CFAST (0.0 m)

CFAST (0.5 m)

CFAST (1.0 m)

CFAST (1.5 m)

0.5 1 1.5 2

0

5

10

15

20

25

Distance (m)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Fleury Heat Flux, 250 kW, Side, 3:1 Burner

Exp (0.0 m)

Exp (0.5 m)

Exp (1.0 m)

Exp (1.5 m)

CFAST (0.0 m)

CFAST (0.5 m)

CFAST (1.0 m)

CFAST (1.5 m)

Figure C.4: Comparison of predicted (lines) and measured (circles) heat flux for the 250 kW Fleury 

fires. 

129 
0.5 1 1.5 2

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Distance (m)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Fleury Heat Flux, 300 kW, Front, 1:1 Burner

Exp (0.0 m)

Exp (0.5 m)

Exp (1.0 m)

Exp (1.5 m)

CFAST (0.0 m)

CFAST (0.5 m)

CFAST (1.0 m)

CFAST (1.5 m)

0.5 1 1.5 2

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Distance (m)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Fleury Heat Flux, 300 kW, Side, 1:1 Burner

Exp (0.0 m)

Exp (0.5 m)

Exp (1.0 m)

Exp (1.5 m)

CFAST (0.0 m)

CFAST (0.5 m)

CFAST (1.0 m)

CFAST (1.5 m)

0.5 1 1.5 2

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Distance (m)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Fleury Heat Flux, 300 kW, Front, 2:1 Burner

Exp (0.0 m)

Exp (0.5 m)

Exp (1.0 m)

Exp (1.5 m)

CFAST (0.0 m)

CFAST (0.5 m)

CFAST (1.0 m)

CFAST (1.5 m)

0.5 1 1.5 2

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Distance (m)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Fleury Heat Flux, 300 kW, Side, 2:1 Burner

Exp (0.0 m)

Exp (0.5 m)

Exp (1.0 m)

Exp (1.5 m)

CFAST (0.0 m)

CFAST (0.5 m)

CFAST (1.0 m)

CFAST (1.5 m)

0.5 1 1.5 2

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Distance (m)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Fleury Heat Flux, 300 kW, Front, 3:1 Burner

Exp (0.0 m)

Exp (0.5 m)

Exp (1.0 m)

Exp (1.5 m)

CFAST (0.0 m)

CFAST (0.5 m)

CFAST (1.0 m)

CFAST (1.5 m)

0.5 1 1.5 2

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Distance (m)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Fleury Heat Flux, 300 kW, Side, 3:1 Burner

Exp (0.0 m)

Exp (0.5 m)

Exp (1.0 m)

Exp (1.5 m)

CFAST (0.0 m)

CFAST (0.5 m)

CFAST (1.0 m)

CFAST (1.5 m)

Figure C.5: Comparison of predicted (lines) and measured (circles) heat flux for the 300 kW Fleury 

fires. 

130 
C.3 FM Four Room Including Corridor Test Series 

This data set describes a series of tests conducted in a multiple room configuration with more 

complex gas burner fires than the previous data set. This study [67] was included because, in many 

ways, it is similar to the smoke movement study performed at NBS [68], and permits comparisons 

between two different laboratories. In addition, it expands upon that data set by providing larger 

a time-varying gas burner fires in a room-corridor configuration. Fire size was about up to 1 MW 

with a total volume of 200 m3. This study was performed to collect data allowing for variations 

in fire source, ventilation, and geometry in a multi-compartment structure, especially for situations 

with closed doors. 

131
 
0 2 4 6 8 10

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

HGL Temperature, FM/NBS Test 19

Exp (T_Upper)

CFAST (ULT_1)

0 2 4 6 8 10

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

Time (min)

Height (m)

HGL Height, FM/NBS Test 19

Exp (Height)

CFAST (HGT_1)

0 2 4 6 8 10

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

HGL Temperature, FM/NBS Test 19

Exp (T_Upper_Near)

Exp (T_Upper_Middle)

Exp (T_Upper_Far)

CFAST (ULT_2)

CFAST (ULT_2)

CFAST (ULT_2)

0 2 4 6 8 10

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

Time (min)

Height (m)

HGL Height, FM/NBS Test 19

Exp (Height_Near)

Exp (Height_Middle)

Exp (Height_Far)

CFAST (HGT_2)

CFAST (HGT_2)

CFAST (HGT_2)

0 2 4 6 8 10

0

20

40

60

80

100

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

HGL Temperature, FM/NBS Test 19

Exp (T_Upper)

CFAST (ULT_3)

0 2 4 6 8 10

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

Time (min)

Height (m)

HGL Height, FM/NBS Test 19

Exp (Height)

CFAST (HGT_3)

0 2 4 6 8 10

0

20

40

60

80

100

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

HGL Temperature, FM/NBS Test 19

Exp (T_Upper)

CFAST (ULT_4)

0 2 4 6 8 10

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

Time (min)

Height (m)

HGL Height, FM/NBS Test 19

Exp (Height)

CFAST (HGT_4)

132
 
0 2 4 6 8 10

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

HGL Temperature, FM/NBS Test 21

Exp (T_Upper)

CFAST (ULT_1)

0 2 4 6 8 10

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

Time (min)

Height (m)

HGL Height, FM/NBS Test 21

Exp (Height)

CFAST (HGT_1)

0 2 4 6 8 10

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

HGL Temperature, FM/NBS Test 21

Exp (T_Upper_Near)

Exp (T_Upper_Middle)

Exp (T_Upper_Far)

CFAST (ULT_2)

CFAST (ULT_2)

CFAST (ULT_2)

0 2 4 6 8 10

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

Time (min)

Height (m)

HGL Height, FM/NBS Test 21

Exp (Height_Near)

Exp (Height_Middle)

Exp (Height_Far)

CFAST (HGT_2)

CFAST (HGT_2)

CFAST (HGT_2)

0 2 4 6 8 10

0

20

40

60

80

100

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

HGL Temperature, FM/NBS Test 21

Exp (T_Upper)

CFAST (ULT_3)

0 2 4 6 8 10

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

Time (min)

Height (m)

HGL Height, FM/NBS Test 21

Exp (Height)

CFAST (HGT_3)

0 2 4 6 8 10

0

20

40

60

80

100

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

HGL Temperature, FM/NBS Test 21

Exp (T_Upper)

CFAST (ULT_4)

0 2 4 6 8 10

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

Time (min)

Height (m)

HGL Height, FM/NBS Test 21

Exp (Height)

CFAST (HGT_4)

133
 
0 2 4 6 8 10

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

Time (min)

Volume Fraction

Oxygen Concentration, FM/NBS Test 19

Exp (O2−1)

CFAST (O2 1)

0 2 4 6 8 10

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

Time (min)

Volume Fraction

CO2 Concentration, FM/NBS Test 19

Exp (CO2−1)

CFAST (CO2 1)

0 2 4 6 8 10

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

Time (min)

Volume Fraction

Oxygen Concentration, FM/NBS Test 19

Exp (O2−2)

CFAST (O2 2)

0 2 4 6 8 10

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

Time (min)

Volume Fraction

CO2 Concentration, FM/NBS Test 19

Exp (CO2−2)

CFAST (CO2 2)

0 2 4 6 8 10

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

Time (min)

Volume Fraction

CO2 Concentration, FM/NBS Test 19

Exp (CO2−3)

CFAST (CO2 3)

0 2 4 6 8 10

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

Time (min)

Volume Fraction

CO2 Concentration, FM/NBS Test 19

Exp (CO2−4)

CFAST (CO2 4)

134
 
0 2 4 6 8 10

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

Time (min)

Volume Fraction

Oxygen Concentration, FM/NBS Test 21

Exp (O2−1)

CFAST (O2 1)

0 2 4 6 8 10

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

Time (min)

Volume Fraction

CO2 Concentration, FM/NBS Test 21

Exp (CO2−1)

CFAST (CO2 1)

0 2 4 6 8 10

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

Time (min)

Volume Fraction

Oxygen Concentration, FM/NBS Test 21

Exp (O2−2)

CFAST (O2 2)

0 2 4 6 8 10

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

Time (min)

Volume Fraction

CO2 Concentration, FM/NBS Test 21

Exp (CO2−2)

CFAST (CO2 2)

0 2 4 6 8 10

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

Time (min)

Volume Fraction

CO2 Concentration, FM/NBS Test 21

Exp (CO2−1)

CFAST (CO2 3)

0 2 4 6 8 10

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

Time (min)

Volume Fraction

CO2 Concentration, FM/NBS Test 21

Exp (CO2−2)

CFAST (CO2 4)

135
 
C.4 FM/SNL Test Series 

The Factory Mutual and Sandia National Laboratories (FM/SNL) Test Series was a series of 25 

fire tests conducted in 1985 for the NRC by Factory Mutual Research Corporation (FMRC), under 

the direction of Sandia National Laboratories (SNL). The primary purpose of these tests was to 

provide data with which to validate computer models for various types of NPP compartments. The 

experiments were conducted in an enclosure measuring 18 m x 12 m x 6 m, constructed at the 

FMRC fire test facility in Rhode Island. The FM/SNL test series is described in detail, including 

the types and locations of measurement devices, as well as some results in References [69, 70]. 

136
 
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

50

100

150

200

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

HGL Temperature, FM/SNL Test 1

Exp (T_Upper)

CFAST (ULT_1)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Time (min)

Height (m)

HGL Height, FM/SNL Test 1

Exp (Height)

CFAST (HGT_1)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

50

100

150

200

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

HGL Temperature, FM/SNL Test 2

Exp (T_Upper)

CFAST (ULT_1)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Time (min)

Height (m)

HGL Height, FM/SNL Test 2

Exp (Height)

CFAST (HGT_1)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

50

100

150

200

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

HGL Temperature, FM/SNL Test 3

Exp (T_Upper)

CFAST (ULT_1)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Time (min)

Height (m)

HGL Height, FM/SNL Test 3

Exp (Height)

CFAST (HGT_1)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

50

100

150

200

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

HGL Temperature, FM/SNL Test 4

Exp (T_Upper)

CFAST (ULT_1)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Time (min)

Height (m)

HGL Height, FM/SNL Test 4

Exp (Height)

CFAST (HGT_1)

137
 
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

50

100

150

200

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

HGL Temperature, FM/SNL Test 5

Exp (T_Upper)

CFAST (ULT_1)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Time (min)

Height (m)

HGL Height, FM/SNL Test 5

Exp (Height)

CFAST (HGT_1)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

50

100

150

200

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

HGL Temperature, FM/SNL Test 6

Exp (T_Upper)

CFAST (ULT_1)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Time (min)

Height (m)

HGL Height, FM/SNL Test 6

Exp (Height)

CFAST (HGT_1)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

50

100

150

200

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

HGL Temperature, FM/SNL Test 7

Exp (T_Upper)

CFAST (ULT_1)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Time (min)

Height (m)

HGL Height, FM/SNL Test 7

Exp (Height)

CFAST (HGT_1)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

50

100

150

200

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

HGL Temperature, FM/SNL Test 8

Exp (T_Upper)

CFAST (ULT_1)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Time (min)

Height (m)

HGL Height, FM/SNL Test 8

Exp (Height)

CFAST (HGT_1)

138
 
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

50

100

150

200

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

HGL Temperature, FM/SNL Test 9

Exp (T_Upper)

CFAST (ULT_1)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Time (min)

Height (m)

HGL Height, FM/SNL Test 9

Exp (Height)

CFAST (HGT_1)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

50

100

150

200

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

HGL Temperature, FM/SNL Test 10

Exp (T_Upper)

CFAST (ULT_1)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Time (min)

Height (m)

HGL Height, FM/SNL Test 10

Exp (Height)

CFAST (HGT_1)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

50

100

150

200

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

HGL Temperature, FM/SNL Test 11

Exp (T_Upper)

CFAST (ULT_1)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Time (min)

Height (m)

HGL Height, FM/SNL Test 11

Exp (Height)

CFAST (HGT_1)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

50

100

150

200

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

HGL Temperature, FM/SNL Test 12

Exp (T_Upper)

CFAST (ULT_1)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Time (min)

Height (m)

HGL Height, FM/SNL Test 12

Exp (Height)

CFAST (HGT_1)

139
 
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

50

100

150

200

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

HGL Temperature, FM/SNL Test 13

Exp (T_Upper)

CFAST (ULT_1)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Time (min)

Height (m)

HGL Height, FM/SNL Test 13

Exp (Height)

CFAST (HGT_1)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

50

100

150

200

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

HGL Temperature, FM/SNL Test 14

Exp (T_Upper)

CFAST (ULT_1)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Time (min)

Height (m)

HGL Height, FM/SNL Test 14

Exp (Height)

CFAST (HGT_1)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

50

100

150

200

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

HGL Temperature, FM/SNL Test 15

Exp (T_Upper)

CFAST (ULT_1)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Time (min)

Height (m)

HGL Height, FM/SNL Test 15

Exp (Height)

CFAST (HGT_1)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

50

100

150

200

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

HGL Temperature, FM/SNL Test 16

Exp (T_Upper)

CFAST (ULT_1)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Time (min)

Height (m)

HGL Height, FM/SNL Test 16

Exp (Height)

CFAST (HGT_1)

140
 
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

50

100

150

200

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

HGL Temperature, FM/SNL Test 17

Exp (T_Upper)

CFAST (ULT_1)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Time (min)

Height (m)

HGL Height, FM/SNL Test 17

Exp (Height)

CFAST (HGT_1)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

50

100

150

200

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

HGL Temperature, FM/SNL Test 21

Exp (T_Upper)

CFAST (ULT_1)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Time (min)

Height (m)

HGL Height, FM/SNL Test 21

Exp (Height)

CFAST (HGT_1)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

50

100

150

200

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

HGL Temperature, FM/SNL Test 22

Exp (T_Upper)

CFAST (ULT_1)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Time (min)

Height (m)

HGL Height, FM/SNL Test 22

Exp (Height)

CFAST (HGT_1)

141
 
0 5 10 15

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Plume Temperature, FM/SNL Test 1

Exp (28/(0.98 H))

CFAST (Target 1)

0 5 10 15

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Plume Temperature, FM/SNL Test 2

Exp (28/(0.98 H))

CFAST (Target 1)

0 5 10 15

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Plume Temperature, FM/SNL Test 3

Exp (28/(0.98 H))

CFAST (Target 1)

0 5 10 15

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Plume Temperature, FM/SNL Test 4

Exp (28/(0.98 H))

CFAST (Target 1)

0 5 10 15

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Plume Temperature, FM/SNL Test 5

Exp (28/(0.98 H))

CFAST (Target 1)

0 5 10 15

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Plume Temperature, FM/SNL Test 6

Exp (28/(0.98 H))

CFAST (Target 1)

0 5 10 15

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Plume Temperature, FM/SNL Test 7

Exp (28/(0.98 H))

CFAST (Target 1)

0 5 10 15

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Plume Temperature, FM/SNL Test 8

Exp (28/(0.98 H))

CFAST (Target 1)

142
 
0 5 10 15

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Plume Temperature, FM/SNL Test 9

Exp (28/(0.98 H))

CFAST (Target 1)

0 5 10 15

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Plume Temperature, FM/SNL Test 10

Exp (28/(0.98 H))

CFAST (Target 1)

0 5 10 15

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Plume Temperature, FM/SNL Test 11

Exp (28/(0.98 H))

CFAST (Target 1)

0 5 10 15

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Plume Temperature, FM/SNL Test 12

Exp (28/(0.98 H))

CFAST (Target 1)

0 5 10 15

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Plume Temperature, FM/SNL Test 13

Exp (28/(0.98 H))

CFAST (Target 1)

0 5 10 15

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Plume Temperature, FM/SNL Test 14

Exp (28/(0.98 H))

CFAST (Target 1)

0 5 10 15

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Plume Temperature, FM/SNL Test 15

Exp (28/(0.98 H))

CFAST (Target 1)

0 5 10 15

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Plume Temperature, FM/SNL Test 16

Exp (28/(0.98 H))

CFAST (Target 1)

143
 
0 5 10 15

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Plume Temperature, FM/SNL Test 17

Exp (28/(0.98 H))

CFAST (Target 1)

0 5 10 15

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Plume Temperature, FM/SNL Test 21

Exp (28/(0.98 H))

CFAST (Target 1)

0 5 10 15

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Plume Temperature, FM/SNL Test 22

Exp (28/(0.98 H))

CFAST (Target 1)

144
 
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

50

100

150

200

250

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Ceiling Jet Temperature, FM/SNL Test 1

Exp (1/(0.98 H))

Exp (11/(0.98 H))

CFAST (Sensor 1)

CFAST (Sensor 2)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

50

100

150

200

250

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Ceiling Jet Temperature, FM/SNL Test 2

Exp (1/(0.98 H))

Exp (11/(0.98 H))

CFAST (Sensor 1)

CFAST (Sensor 2)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

50

100

150

200

250

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Ceiling Jet Temperature, FM/SNL Test 3

Exp (1/(0.98 H))

Exp (11/(0.98 H))

CFAST (Sensor 1)

CFAST (Sensor 2)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

50

100

150

200

250

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Ceiling Jet Temperature, FM/SNL Test 4

Exp (1/(0.98 H))

Exp (11/(0.98 H))

CFAST (Sensor 1)

CFAST (Sensor 2)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

50

100

150

200

250

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Ceiling Jet Temperature, FM/SNL Test 5

Exp (1/(0.98 H))

Exp (11/(0.98 H))

CFAST (Sensor 1)

CFAST (Sensor 2)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

50

100

150

200

250

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Ceiling Jet Temperature, FM/SNL Test 6

Exp (1/(0.98 H))

Exp (11/(0.98 H))

CFAST (Sensor 1)

CFAST (Sensor 2)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

50

100

150

200

250

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Ceiling Jet Temperature, FM/SNL Test 7

Exp (1/(0.98 H))

Exp (11/(0.98 H))

CFAST (Sensor 1)

CFAST (Sensor 2)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

50

100

150

200

250

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Ceiling Jet Temperature, FM/SNL Test 8

Exp (1/(0.98 H))

Exp (11/(0.98 H))

CFAST (Sensor 1)

CFAST (Sensor 2)

145
 
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

50

100

150

200

250

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Ceiling Jet Temperature, FM/SNL Test 9

Exp (1/(0.98 H))

Exp (11/(0.98 H))

CFAST (Sensor 1)

CFAST (Sensor 2)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

50

100

150

200

250

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Ceiling Jet Temperature, FM/SNL Test 10

Exp (1/(0.98 H))

Exp (11/(0.98 H))

CFAST (Sensor 1)

CFAST (Sensor 2)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

50

100

150

200

250

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Ceiling Jet Temperature, FM/SNL Test 11

Exp (1/(0.98 H))

Exp (11/(0.98 H))

CFAST (Sensor 1)

CFAST (Sensor 2)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

50

100

150

200

250

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Ceiling Jet Temperature, FM/SNL Test 12

Exp (1/(0.98 H))

Exp (11/(0.98 H))

CFAST (Sensor 1)

CFAST (Sensor 2)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

50

100

150

200

250

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Ceiling Jet Temperature, FM/SNL Test 13

Exp (1/(0.98 H))

Exp (11/(0.98 H))

CFAST (Sensor 1)

CFAST (Sensor 2)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

50

100

150

200

250

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Ceiling Jet Temperature, FM/SNL Test 14

Exp (1/(0.98 H))

Exp (11/(0.98 H))

CFAST (Sensor 1)

CFAST (Sensor 2)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

50

100

150

200

250

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Ceiling Jet Temperature, FM/SNL Test 15

Exp (1/(0.98 H))

Exp (11/(0.98 H))

CFAST (Sensor 1)

CFAST (Sensor 2)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

50

100

150

200

250

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Ceiling Jet Temperature, FM/SNL Test 16

Exp (1/(0.98 H))

Exp (11/(0.98 H))

CFAST (Sensor 1)

CFAST (Sensor 2)

146
 
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

50

100

150

200

250

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Ceiling Jet Temperature, FM/SNL Test 17

Exp (1/(0.98 H))

Exp (11/(0.98 H))

CFAST (Sensor 1)

CFAST (Sensor 2)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

50

100

150

200

250

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Ceiling Jet Temperature, FM/SNL Test 21

Exp (1/(0.98 H))

Exp (11/(0.98 H))

CFAST (Sensor 1)

CFAST (Sensor 2)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

50

100

150

200

250

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Ceiling Jet Temperature, FM/SNL Test 22

Exp (1/(0.98 H))

Exp (11/(0.98 H))

CFAST (Sensor 1)

CFAST (Sensor 2)

147
 
C.5 iBMB Compartment Tests 

A series of small compartment kerosene pool fire experiments, conducted at the Institut fur Baustoffe,  ̈

Massivbau und Brandschutz (iBMB) of Braunschweig University of Technology in Germany in 

2004 [71]. The results from Test 1 were considered here. These experiments involved relatively 

large fires in a relatively small (3.6 m x 3.6 m x 5.7 m) concrete enclosure. 

A second series of fire experiments in 2004, conducted under the International Collaborative 

Fire Model Project (ICFMP) involved realistically routed cable trays inside the same concrete 

enclosure at iBMB [72]. The compartment was configured slightly differently with a ceiling height 

of 5.6 m. 

Temperature measurements conducted during the test series were used to estimate the HGL 

temperature and depth. 

148
 
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

200

400

600

800

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

HGL Temperature, iBMB Pool Fire

Exp (T_Upper)

CFAST (ULT_1)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Time (min)

Height (m)

HGL Height, iBMB Pool Fire

Exp (Height)

CFAST (HGT_1)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

HGL Temperature, iBMB Cable Fire

Exp (T_Upper)

CFAST (ULT_1)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Time (min)

Height (m)

HGL Height, iBMB Cable Fire

Exp (Height)

CFAST (HGT_1)

149
 
C.6 LLNL Enclosure Series 

The plots on the following pages compare predicted and measured layer temperatures from the 

LLNL Enclosure test series. In the experiments, fifteen thermocouples were evenly spaced from 

floor to ceiling on either side of the burner. The measured temperatures were reported as averages 

of the lower, middle, and upper five TCs. Some of the experiments were conducted with a separated 

plenum space in the top one-third of the overall compartment (Tests 17-60). In these cases, the 

upper five TCs are a measure of the average plenum temperature. 

In the figures on the following pages, the black circles represent the average of the five uppermost TC measurements. The lines represent the simulation. The red circles represent the average 

of the middle five TC measurements. For the plenum tests, these TCs are located immediately 

beneath the plenum and their average temperature is typically greater than that of the plenum. Note 

that in a number of tests, the fuel flow was stopped or the fire self-extinguished. The simulations 

last only as long as the reported measurements. 

150
 
0 10 20 30 40 50

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Layer Temperatures, LLNL Enclosure Test 1

0 10 20 30 40 50

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Layer Temperatures, LLNL Enclosure Test 2

0 10 20 30 40 50

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Layer Temperatures, LLNL Enclosure Test 3

0 10 20 30 40 50

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Layer Temperatures, LLNL Enclosure Test 4

0 10 20 30 40 50

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Layer Temperatures, LLNL Enclosure Test 5

0 10 20 30 40 50

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Layer Temperatures, LLNL Enclosure Test 6

0 10 20 30 40 50

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Layer Temperatures, LLNL Enclosure Test 7

0 10 20 30 40 50

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Layer Temperatures, LLNL Enclosure Test 8

151
 
0 20 40 60 80 100

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Layer Temperatures, LLNL Enclosure Test 9

0 20 40 60 80 100

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Layer Temperatures, LLNL Enclosure Test 10

0 20 40 60 80 100

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Layer Temperatures, LLNL Enclosure Test 11

0 20 40 60 80 100

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Layer Temperatures, LLNL Enclosure Test 12

0 20 40 60 80 100

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Layer Temperatures, LLNL Enclosure Test 13

0 20 40 60 80 100

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Layer Temperatures, LLNL Enclosure Test 14

0 20 40 60 80 100

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Layer Temperatures, LLNL Enclosure Test 15

0 20 40 60 80 100

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Layer Temperatures, LLNL Enclosure Test 16

152
 
0 20 40 60 80 100

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Layer Temperatures, LLNL Enclosure Test 17

0 20 40 60 80 100

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Layer Temperatures, LLNL Enclosure Test 18

0 20 40 60 80 100

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Layer Temperatures, LLNL Enclosure Test 19

0 20 40 60 80 100

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Layer Temperatures, LLNL Enclosure Test 20

0 20 40 60 80 100

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Layer Temperatures, LLNL Enclosure Test 21

0 20 40 60 80 100

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Layer Temperatures, LLNL Enclosure Test 22

0 20 40 60 80 100

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Layer Temperatures, LLNL Enclosure Test 23

0 20 40 60 80 100

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Layer Temperatures, LLNL Enclosure Test 24

153
 
0 20 40 60 80 100

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Layer Temperatures, LLNL Enclosure Test 25

0 20 40 60 80 100

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Layer Temperatures, LLNL Enclosure Test 26

0 20 40 60 80 100

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Layer Temperatures, LLNL Enclosure Test 27

0 20 40 60 80 100

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Layer Temperatures, LLNL Enclosure Test 28

0 20 40 60 80 100

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Layer Temperatures, LLNL Enclosure Test 29

0 20 40 60 80 100

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Layer Temperatures, LLNL Enclosure Test 30

0 20 40 60 80 100

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Layer Temperatures, LLNL Enclosure Test 31

0 20 40 60 80 100

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Layer Temperatures, LLNL Enclosure Test 32

154
 
0 20 40 60 80 100

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Layer Temperatures, LLNL Enclosure Test 33

0 20 40 60 80 100

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Layer Temperatures, LLNL Enclosure Test 34

0 20 40 60 80 100

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Layer Temperatures, LLNL Enclosure Test 35

0 20 40 60 80 100

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Layer Temperatures, LLNL Enclosure Test 36

0 20 40 60 80 100

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Layer Temperatures, LLNL Enclosure Test 37

0 20 40 60 80 100

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Layer Temperatures, LLNL Enclosure Test 38

0 20 40 60 80 100

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Layer Temperatures, LLNL Enclosure Test 39

0 20 40 60 80 100

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Layer Temperatures, LLNL Enclosure Test 40

155
 
0 20 40 60 80 100

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Layer Temperatures, LLNL Enclosure Test 41

0 20 40 60 80 100

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Layer Temperatures, LLNL Enclosure Test 42

0 20 40 60 80 100

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Layer Temperatures, LLNL Enclosure Test 43

0 20 40 60 80 100

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Layer Temperatures, LLNL Enclosure Test 44

0 20 40 60 80 100

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Layer Temperatures, LLNL Enclosure Test 45

0 20 40 60 80 100

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Layer Temperatures, LLNL Enclosure Test 46

0 20 40 60 80 100

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Layer Temperatures, LLNL Enclosure Test 47

0 20 40 60 80 100

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Layer Temperatures, LLNL Enclosure Test 48

156
 
0 20 40 60 80 100

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Layer Temperatures, LLNL Enclosure Test 49

0 20 40 60 80 100

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Layer Temperatures, LLNL Enclosure Test 50

0 20 40 60 80 100

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Layer Temperatures, LLNL Enclosure Test 51

0 20 40 60 80 100

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Layer Temperatures, LLNL Enclosure Test 52

0 20 40 60 80 100

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Layer Temperatures, LLNL Enclosure Test 53

0 20 40 60 80 100

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Layer Temperatures, LLNL Enclosure Test 54

0 20 40 60 80 100

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Layer Temperatures, LLNL Enclosure Test 55

0 20 40 60 80 100

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Layer Temperatures, LLNL Enclosure Test 56

157
 
0 20 40 60 80 100

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Layer Temperatures, LLNL Enclosure Test 57

0 20 40 60 80 100

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Layer Temperatures, LLNL Enclosure Test 58

0 20 40 60 80 100

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Layer Temperatures, LLNL Enclosure Test 59

0 20 40 60 80 100

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Layer Temperatures, LLNL Enclosure Test 60

0 20 40 60 80 100

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Layer Temperatures, LLNL Enclosure Test 61

0 20 40 60 80 100

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Layer Temperatures, LLNL Enclosure Test 62

0 20 40 60 80 100

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Layer Temperatures, LLNL Enclosure Test 63

0 20 40 60 80 100

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Layer Temperatures, LLNL Enclosure Test 64

158
 
 

The test report of the LLNL Enclosure experiments lists the mass flow rate, m ̇ , through the 

exhaust duct at different times during the tests. It also lists the compartment pressures, Δp, at these 

same times. From the simple leak formula: 

m  ̇

ρ0 

= A 

2Δp 

ρ0 

(C.1) 

the leakage area, A, is estimated to be 0.018 m2, based on the initial exhaust rate and pressure. 

For modeling purposes, the “leakage area” is assumed to be the sum of the inlet duct area plus 

any actual compartment leakage area. The mass flow rate through the exhaust duct is specified 

explicitly in the model. The test report does not provide enough information about the ventilation 

system to model the fan and filtration system within the exhaust duct. 

In the figures on the following pages, the open circles represent the measured pressure; the line 

represents the predicted pressure. The predicted pressures are time-averaged over a time interval 

that is one-tenth the total simulation time. In general, the short-duration pressure spike that is 

typical of fires within relatively tight compartments has been smoothed over in the reported test 

data. Depending on the simulation, it often appears in the simulation data. The comparison of 

measurement and prediction is based on the final few pressure points, not the initial spike. 

Only some of the 64 experiments are included. In some cases, the fan was turned off and there 

is not enough information in the test report to determine the pressure losses through the duct. In 

other cases, there are only two pressure measurements reported; one at the start of the test, the 

other either before or after extinction. In various other cases, either there is not enough data or 

the data is inconsistent with the reported conditions. For cases where the door to the compartment 

was open, the measured gauge pressures at the start of the experiment ranged from 0 Pa to 10 Pa. 

There is not enough information in the test report to explain why the starting pressures were not 

0 Pa; thus, the measured pressures were adjusted so that the starting pressure is 0 Pa. 

159
 
0 20 40 60 80 100

−450

−400

−350

−300

−250

Time (min)

Pressure (Pa)

Pressure, LLNL Enclosure Test 9

0 20 40 60 80 100

−100

−50

0

50

100

Time (min)

Pressure (Pa)

Pressure, LLNL Enclosure Test 11

0 20 40 60 80 100

−200

−150

−100

−50

0

Time (min)

Pressure (Pa)

Pressure, LLNL Enclosure Test 12

0 20 40 60 80 100

−300

−250

−200

−150

−100

Time (min)

Pressure (Pa)

Pressure, LLNL Enclosure Test 13

0 20 40 60 80 100

−300

−250

−200

−150

−100

Time (min)

Pressure (Pa)

Pressure, LLNL Enclosure Test 14

0 20 40 60 80 100

−200

−150

−100

−50

0

Time (min)

Pressure (Pa)

Pressure, LLNL Enclosure Test 15

0 20 40 60 80 100

−200

−150

−100

−50

0

Time (min)

Pressure (Pa)

Pressure, LLNL Enclosure Test 16

0 20 40 60 80 100

−450

−400

−350

−300

−250

Time (min)

Pressure (Pa)

Pressure, LLNL Enclosure Test 17

160
 
0 20 40 60 80 100

−300

−250

−200

−150

−100

Time (min)

Pressure (Pa)

Pressure, LLNL Enclosure Test 18

0 20 40 60 80 100

−200

−150

−100

−50

0

Time (min)

Pressure (Pa)

Pressure, LLNL Enclosure Test 19

0 20 40 60 80 100

−100

−50

0

50

100

Time (min)

Pressure (Pa)

Pressure, LLNL Enclosure Test 20

0 20 40 60 80 100

−200

−150

−100

−50

0

50

100

Time (min)

Pressure (Pa)

Pressure, LLNL Enclosure Test 23

0 20 40 60 80 100

−450

−400

−350

−300

−250

Time (min)

Pressure (Pa)

Pressure, LLNL Enclosure Test 26

0 20 40 60 80 100

−200

−150

−100

−50

0

Time (min)

Pressure (Pa)

Pressure, LLNL Enclosure Test 29

0 20 40 60 80 100

−200

−150

−100

−50

0

Time (min)

Pressure (Pa)

Pressure, LLNL Enclosure Test 30

0 20 40 60 80 100

−450

−400

−350

−300

−250

Time (min)

Pressure (Pa)

Pressure, LLNL Enclosure Test 31

161
 
0 20 40 60 80 100

−50

0

50

Time (min)

Pressure (Pa)

Pressure, LLNL Enclosure Test 32

0 20 40 60 80 100

−200

−150

−100

−50

0

50

100

Time (min)

Pressure (Pa)

Pressure, LLNL Enclosure Test 33

0 20 40 60 80 100

−300

−250

−200

−150

−100

−50

0

Time (min)

Pressure (Pa)

Pressure, LLNL Enclosure Test 34

0 20 40 60 80 100

−400

−350

−300

−250

−200

−150

−100

Time (min)

Pressure (Pa)

Pressure, LLNL Enclosure Test 35

0 20 40 60 80 100

−1000

−900

−800

−700

−600

−500

−400

−300

Time (min)

Pressure (Pa)

Pressure, LLNL Enclosure Test 36

0 20 40 60 80 100

−200

−150

−100

−50

0

Time (min)

Pressure (Pa)

Pressure, LLNL Enclosure Test 38

0 20 40 60 80 100

−300

−250

−200

−150

−100

Time (min)

Pressure (Pa)

Pressure, LLNL Enclosure Test 40

0 20 40 60 80 100

−100

−80

−60

−40

−20

0

Time (min)

Pressure (Pa)

Pressure, LLNL Enclosure Test 42

162
 
0 20 40 60 80 100

−100

−80

−60

−40

−20

0

Time (min)

Pressure (Pa)

Pressure, LLNL Enclosure Test 44

0 20 40 60 80 100

−100

−80

−60

−40

−20

0

Time (min)

Pressure (Pa)

Pressure, LLNL Enclosure Test 50

0 20 40 60 80 100

−10

0

10

20

30

40

50

Time (min)

Pressure (Pa)

Pressure, LLNL Enclosure Test 51

0 20 40 60 80 100

−10

0

10

20

30

40

50

Time (min)

Pressure (Pa)

Pressure, LLNL Enclosure Test 52

0 20 40 60 80 100

−100

−80

−60

−40

−20

0

Time (min)

Pressure (Pa)

Pressure, LLNL Enclosure Test 54

0 20 40 60 80 100

−10

0

10

20

30

Time (min)

Pressure (Pa)

Pressure, LLNL Enclosure Test 55

0 20 40 60 80 100

−100

−80

−60

−40

−20

0

Time (min)

Pressure (Pa)

Pressure, LLNL Enclosure Test 57

0 20 40 60 80 100

−100

−80

−60

−40

−20

0

Time (min)

Pressure (Pa)

Pressure, LLNL Enclosure Test 58

163
 
0 20 40 60 80 100

−100

−80

−60

−40

−20

0

Time (min)

Pressure (Pa)

Pressure, LLNL Enclosure Test 59

0 20 40 60 80 100

−10

0

10

20

30

Time (min)

Pressure (Pa)

Pressure, LLNL Enclosure Test 60

0 20 40 60 80 100

−10

0

10

20

30

Time (min)

Pressure (Pa)

Pressure, LLNL Enclosure Test 61

0 20 40 60 80 100

−10

0

10

20

30

Time (min)

Pressure (Pa)

Pressure, LLNL Enclosure Test 62

0 20 40 60 80 100

−10

0

10

20

30

Time (min)

Pressure (Pa)

Pressure, LLNL Enclosure Test 63

0 20 40 60 80 100

−10

0

10

20

30

Time (min)

Pressure (Pa)

Pressure, LLNL Enclosure Test 64

164
 
C.7 NBS Single Room Tests with Furniture 

These data describe a series of room fire tests using upholstered furniture items in a room of fixed 

size but with varying opening sizes and shapes [39] conducted by the National Bureau of Standards 

(NBS, former name of NIST). It was selected for its well characterized and realistic fuel sources 

in a simple single-room geometry. In addition, the wide variation in opening size should provide 

challenges for current zone fire models. Peak fire size was about 2.9 MW with a total room volume 

of 21 m3. A series of four single-room fire tests were conducted using upholstered furniture items 

for comparison with their free burning behavior, previously determined in a furniture calorimeter. 

The experiments were conducted in a single room enclosure; ventilation to the room was provided 

by window openings of varying sizes. The room was equipped with an instrumented exhaust 

collection system outside the window opening. 

A second similar test series also utilized a single-room fire test with furniture as the fire source 

[74]. It expanded upon the first data set by adding the phenomenon of wall burning. Peak fire size 

was about 7 MW. The room size was similar to the first test series. 

165
 
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

200

400

600

800

1000

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

HGL Temperature, NBS 1 Room, Test 1

Exp (T_Upper_1)

Exp (T_Upper_2)

CFAST (ULT_1)

CFAST (ULT_1)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

Time (min)

Height (m)

HGL Height, NBS 1 Room, Test 1

Exp (Height_1)

Exp (Height_2)

CFAST (HGT_1)

CFAST (HGT_1)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

200

400

600

800

1000

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

HGL Temperature, NBS 1 Room, Test 6

Exp (T_Upper_1)

Exp (T_Upper_2)

CFAST (ULT_1)

CFAST (ULT_1)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

Time (min)

Height (m)

HGL Height, NBS 1 Room, Test 6

Exp (Height_1)

Exp (Height_2)

CFAST (HGT_1)

CFAST (HGT_1)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

200

400

600

800

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

HGL Temperature, NBS Wall Burning Test 1

Exp (T_Upper)

CFAST (ULT_1)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

Time (min)

Height (m)

HGL Height, NBS Wall Burning Test 1

Exp (Height)

CFAST (HGT_1)

0 2 4 6 8 10

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

HGL Temperature, NBS Wall Burning Test 2

Exp (T_Upper)

CFAST (ULT_1)

0 2 4 6 8 10

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

Time (min)

Height (m)

HGL Height NBS Wall Burning Test 2

Exp (Height)

CFAST (HGT_1)

166
 
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

Time (min)

Volume Fraction

Oxygen Concentration, NBS 1 Room Test 1

Exp (O2−1)

Exp (O2−2)

CFAST (O2 1)

CFAST (O2 1)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

Time (min)

Volume Fraction

Oxygen Concentration, NBS 1 Room Test 6

Exp (O2−1)

Exp (O2−2)

CFAST (O2 1)

CFAST (O2 1)

167
 
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

−5

−4

−3

−2

−1

0

1

Time (min)

Pressure (Pa)

Pressure, NBS Wall Burning Test 1

Exp (CompP)

CFAST (Pressure)

0 2 4 6 8 10

−5

−4

−3

−2

−1

0

1

Time (min)

Pressure (Pa)

Pressure, NBS Wall Burning Test 2

Exp (CompP)

CFAST (Pressure)

168
 
C.8 NBS Multi-Compartment Test Series 

The National Bureau of Standards (NBS, former name of NIST) Multi-Compartment Test Series 

consisted of 45 fire tests representing 9 different sets of conditions were conducted in a three-room 

suite. The experiments were conducted in 1985 and are described in detail in reference [68]. The 

suite consisted of two relatively small rooms, connected via a relatively long corridor. Total volume 

of the structure was approximately 100 m2. The fire source, a gas burner, was located against the 

rear wall of one of the small compartments . Fire tests of 100 kW, 300 kW and 500 kW were 

conducted. For the current study, three 100 kW fire experiments have been used, including Test 

100A from Set 1, Test 100O from Set 2, and Test 100Z from Set 4. For the NBS Multi-room series, 

Tests 100A, 100O and 100Z were selected for study, because they were constructively used in a 

previous validation study [[97], and because these tests had the steadiest values of measured heat 

release rate during the steady burning period. The selected data are also available in Reference 

[97]. 

169
 
0 5 10 15 20

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

HGL Temperature, NBS Test 100A, Tree 1

Exp (T_Upper)

CFAST (ULT_1)

0 5 10 15 20

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

Time (min)

Height (m)

HGL Height, NBS Test 100A, Tree 1

Exp (Height)

CFAST (HGT_1)

0 5 10 15 20

0

50

100

150

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

HGL Temperature, NBS Test 100A, Tree 4

Exp (T_Upper)

CFAST (ULT_3)

0 5 10 15 20

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

Time (min)

Height (m)

HGL Height, NBS Test 100A, Tree 4

Exp (Height)

CFAST (HGT_3)

0 5 10 15 20

0

50

100

150

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

HGL Temperature, NBS Test 100A, Tree 5

Exp (T_Upper)

CFAST (ULT_3)

0 5 10 15 20

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

Time (min)

Height (m)

HGL Height, NBS Test 100A, Tree 5

Exp (Height)

CFAST (HGT_3)

0 5 10 15 20

0

50

100

150

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

HGL Temperature, NBS Test 100A, Tree 6

Exp (T_Upper)

CFAST (ULT_3)

0 5 10 15 20

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

Time (min)

Height (m)

HGL Height, NBS Test 100A, Tree 6

Exp (Height)

CFAST (HGT_3)

170
 
0 5 10 15 20

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

HGL Temperature, NBS Test 100O, Tree 1

Exp (T_Upper)

CFAST (ULT_1)

0 5 10 15 20

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

Time (min)

Height (m)

HGL Height, NBS Test 100O, Tree 1

Exp (Height)

CFAST (HGT_1)

0 5 10 15 20

0

50

100

150

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

HGL Temperature, NBS Test 100O, Tree 4

Exp (T_Upper)

CFAST (ULT_3)

0 5 10 15 20

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

Time (min)

Height (m)

HGL Height, NBS Test 100O, Tree 4

Exp (Height)

CFAST (HGT_3)

0 5 10 15 20

0

50

100

150

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

HGL Temperature, NBS Test 100O, Tree 5

Exp (T_Upper)

CFAST (ULT_3)

0 5 10 15 20

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

Time (min)

Height (m)

HGL Height, NBS Test 100O, Tree 5

Exp (Height)

CFAST (HGT_3)

0 5 10 15 20

0

50

100

150

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

HGL Temperature, NBS Test 100O, Tree 6

Exp (T_Upper)

CFAST (ULT_3)

0 5 10 15 20

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

Time (min)

Height (m)

HGL Height, NBS Test 100O, Tree 6

Exp (Height)

CFAST (HGT_3)

171
 
0 5 10 15 20

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

HGL Temperature, NBS Test 100Z, Tree 1

Exp (T_Upper)

CFAST (ULT_1)

0 5 10 15 20

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

Time (min)

Height (m)

HGL Height, NBS Test 100Z, Tree 1

Exp (Height)

CFAST (HGT_1)

0 5 10 15 20

0

50

100

150

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

HGL Temperature, NBS Test 100Z, Tree 4

Exp (T_Upper)

CFAST (ULT_3)

0 5 10 15 20

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

Time (min)

Height (m)

HGL Height, NBS Test 100Z, Tree 4

Exp (Height)

CFAST (HGT_3)

0 5 10 15 20

0

50

100

150

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

HGL Temperature, NBS Test 100Z, Tree 5

Exp (T_Upper)

CFAST (ULT_3)

0 5 10 15 20

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

Time (min)

Height (m)

HGL Height, NBS Test 100Z, Tree 5

Exp (Height)

CFAST (HGT_3)

0 5 10 15 20

0

50

100

150

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

HGL Temperature, NBS Test 100Z, Tree 7

Exp (T_Upper)

CFAST (ULT_4)

0 5 10 15 20

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

Time (min)

Height (m)

HGL Height, NBS Test 100Z, Tree 7

Exp (Height)

CFAST (HGT_4)

172
 
C.9 NIST Smoke Alarm Experiments 

The primary purpose of the NIST smoke alarmexperiments was to measure smoke alarm activation times in residential settings. In the single-story manufactured home tests that were selected 

for validation, five smoke alarm measurement stations (A-E) were located in different areas of the 

manufactured home. Included is a scatterplot of measured and predicted smoke alarm activation 

time. Thermocouple trees were also located at each measurement station. The highest thermocouple in the tree can be compared to ceiling jet temperature predictions. The plots on the following 

page show the measured and predicted ceiling jet temperatures for the five measurement stations 

in each test. 

173
 
0 50 100 150

0

50

100

150

200

Time (s)

Temperature (

°C)

Ceiling Jet, NIST Dunes 2000, Test SDC02

Exp (TCA_1)

Exp (TCB_1)

Exp (TCC_1)

Exp (TCD_1)

Exp (TCE_1)

CFAST (SENGAST_1)

CFAST (SENGAST_5)

CFAST (SENGAST_2)

CFAST (SENGAST_4)

CFAST (SENGAST_3)

0 50 100 150

0

50

100

150

200

Time (s)

Temperature (

°C)

Ceiling Jet, NIST Dunes 2000, Test SDC05

Exp (TCA_1)

Exp (TCB_1)

Exp (TCC_1)

Exp (TCD_1)

Exp (TCE_1)

CFAST (SENGAST_1)

CFAST (SENGAST_5)

CFAST (SENGAST_2)

CFAST (SENGAST_4)

CFAST (SENGAST_3)

0 50 100 150

0

50

100

150

200

Time (s)

Temperature (

°C)

Ceiling Jet, NIST Dunes 2000, Test SDC07

Exp (TCA_1)

Exp (TCB_1)

Exp (TCC_1)

Exp (TCD_1)

Exp (TCE_1)

CFAST (SENGAST_1)

CFAST (SENGAST_5)

CFAST (SENGAST_2)

CFAST (SENGAST_4)

CFAST (SENGAST_3)

0 50 100 150

0

50

100

150

200

Time (s)

Temperature (

°C)

Ceiling Jet, NIST Dunes 2000, Test SDC10

Exp (TCA_1)

Exp (TCB_1)

Exp (TCC_1)

Exp (TCD_1)

Exp (TCE_1)

CFAST (SENGAST_1)

CFAST (SENGAST_5)

CFAST (SENGAST_2)

CFAST (SENGAST_4)

CFAST (SENGAST_3)

0 50 100 150

0

50

100

150

200

Time (s)

Temperature (

°C)

Ceiling Jet, NIST Dunes 2000, Test SDC33

Exp (TCA_1)

Exp (TCB_1)

Exp (TCC_1)

Exp (TCD_1)

Exp (TCE_1)

CFAST (SENGAST_1)

CFAST (SENGAST_5)

CFAST (SENGAST_2)

CFAST (SENGAST_4)

CFAST (SENGAST_3)

0 50 100 150

0

50

100

150

200

Time (s)

Temperature (

°C)

Ceiling Jet, NIST Dunes 2000, Test SDC35

Exp (TCA_1)

Exp (TCB_1)

Exp (TCC_1)

Exp (TCD_1)

Exp (TCE_1)

CFAST (SENGAST_1)

CFAST (SENGAST_5)

CFAST (SENGAST_2)

CFAST (SENGAST_4)

CFAST (SENGAST_3)

0 50 100 150

0

50

100

150

200

Time (s)

Temperature (

°C)

Ceiling Jet, NIST Dunes 2000, Test SDC38

Exp (TCA_1)

Exp (TCB_1)

Exp (TCC_1)

Exp (TCD_1)

Exp (TCE_1)

CFAST (SENGAST_1)

CFAST (SENGAST_5)

CFAST (SENGAST_2)

CFAST (SENGAST_4)

CFAST (SENGAST_3)

0 50 100 150

0

50

100

150

200

Time (s)

Temperature (

°C)

Ceiling Jet, NIST Dunes 2000, Test SDC39

Exp (TCA_1)

Exp (TCB_1)

Exp (TCC_1)

Exp (TCD_1)

Exp (TCE_1)

CFAST (SENGAST_1)

CFAST (SENGAST_5)

CFAST (SENGAST_2)

CFAST (SENGAST_4)

CFAST (SENGAST_3)

174
 
C.10 NIST/NRC Test Series 

These experiments, sponsored by the US NRC and conducted at NIST, consisted of 15 largescale experiments performed in June 2003. All 15 tests were included in the validation study. 

The experiments are documented in Ref. [75]. The fire sizes ranged from 350 kW to 2.2 MW in a 

compartment with dimensions 21.7 m by 7.1 m by 3.8 m high, designed to represent a compartment 

in a nuclear power plant containing power and control cables. The room had one door and a simple 

mechanical ventilation system. Ventilation conditions, the fire size, and fire location were varied. 

Numerous measurements (approximately 350 per test) were made. 

175
 
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

HGL Temperature, NIST/NRC Test 1

Exp (T_Upper)

CFAST (ULT_1)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

1

2

3

4

Time (min)

Height (m)

HGL Height, NIST/NRC Test 1

Exp (Height)

CFAST (HGT_1)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

HGL Temperature, NIST/NRC Test 7

Exp (T_Upper)

CFAST (ULT_1)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

1

2

3

4

Time (min)

Height (m)

HGL Height, NIST/NRC Test 7

Exp (Height)

CFAST (HGT_1)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

HGL Temperature, NIST/NRC Test 2

Exp (T_Upper)

CFAST (ULT_1)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

1

2

3

4

Time (min)

Height (m)

HGL Height, NIST/NRC Test 2

Exp (Height)

CFAST (HGT_1)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

HGL Temperature, NIST/NRC Test 8

Exp (T_Upper)

CFAST (ULT_1)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

1

2

3

4

Time (min)

Height (m)

HGL Height, NIST/NRC Test 8

Exp (Height)

CFAST (HGT_1)

176
 
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

HGL Temperature, NIST/NRC Test 4

Exp (T_Upper)

CFAST (ULT_1)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

1

2

3

4

Time (min)

Height (m)

HGL Height, NIST/NRC Test 4

Exp (Height)

CFAST (HGT_1)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

HGL Temperature, NIST/NRC Test 10

Exp (T_Upper)

CFAST (ULT_1)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

1

2

3

4

Time (min)

Height (m)

HGL Height, NIST/NRC Test 10

Exp (Height)

CFAST (HGT_1)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

HGL Temperature, NIST/NRC Test 13

Exp (T_Upper)

CFAST (ULT_1)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

1

2

3

4

Time (min)

Height (m)

HGL Height, NIST/NRC Test 13

Exp (Height)

CFAST (HGT_1)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

HGL Temperature, NIST/NRC Test 16

Exp (T_Upper)

CFAST (ULT_1)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

1

2

3

4

Time (min)

Height (m)

HGL Height, NIST/NRC Test 16

Exp (Height)

CFAST (HGT_1)

177
 
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

HGL Temperature, NIST/NRC Test 17

Exp (T_Upper)

CFAST (ULT_1)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

1

2

3

4

Time (min)

Height (m)

HGL Height, NIST/NRC Test 17

Exp (Height)

CFAST (HGT_1)

Open Door Tests to follow
 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

HGL Temperature, NIST/NRC Test 3

Exp (T_Upper)

CFAST (ULT_1)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

1

2

3

4

Time (min)

Height (m)

HGL Height, NIST/NRC Test 3

Exp (Height)

CFAST (HGT_1)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

HGL Temperature, NIST/NRC Test 9

Exp (T_Upper)

CFAST (ULT_1)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

1

2

3

4

Time (min)

Height (m)

HGL Height, NIST/NRC Test 9

Exp (Height)

CFAST (HGT_1)

178
 
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

HGL Temperature, NIST/NRC Test 5

Exp (T_Upper)

CFAST (ULT_1)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

1

2

3

4

Time (min)

Height (m)

HGL Height, NIST/NRC Test 5

Exp (Height)

CFAST (HGT_1)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

HGL Temperature, NIST/NRC Test 14

Exp (T_Upper)

CFAST (ULT_1)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

1

2

3

4

Time (min)

Height (m)

HGL Height, NIST/NRC Test 14

Exp (Height)

CFAST (HGT_1)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

HGL Temperature, NIST/NRC Test 15

Exp (T_Upper)

CFAST (ULT_1)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

1

2

3

4

Time (min)

Height (m)

HGL Height, NIST/NRC Test 15

Exp (Height)

CFAST (HGT_1)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

HGL Temperature, NIST/NRC Test 18

Exp (T_Upper)

CFAST (ULT_1)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

1

2

3

4

Time (min)

Height (m)

HGL Height, NIST/NRC Test 18

Exp (Height)

CFAST (HGT_1)

179
 
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Ceiling Jet Temperature, NIST/NRC Test 1

Exp (Tree 7−10)

CFAST (Sensor 1)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Ceiling Jet Temperature, NIST/NRC Test 7

Exp (Tree 7−10)

CFAST (Sensor 1)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Ceiling Jet Temperature, NIST/NRC Test 2

Exp (Tree 7−10)

CFAST (Sensor 1)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Ceiling Jet Temperature, NIST/NRC Test 8

Exp (Tree 7−10)

CFAST (Sensor 1)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Ceiling Jet Temperature, NIST/NRC Test 4

Exp (Tree 7−10)

CFAST (Sensor 1)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Ceiling Jet Temperature, NIST/NRC Test 10

Exp (Tree 7−10)

CFAST (Sensor 1)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Ceiling Jet Temperature, NIST/NRC Test 13

Exp (Tree 7−10)

CFAST (Sensor 1)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Ceiling Jet Temperature, NIST/NRC Test 16

Exp (Tree 7−10)

CFAST (Sensor 1)

180
 
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Ceiling Jet Temperature, NIST/NRC Test 17

Exp (Tree 7−10)

CFAST (Sensor 1)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Ceiling Jet Temperature, NIST/NRC Test 3

Exp (Tree 7−10)

CFAST (Sensor 1)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Ceiling Jet Temperature, NIST/NRC Test 9

Exp (Tree 7−10)

CFAST (Sensor 1)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Ceiling Jet Temperature, NIST/NRC Test 5

Exp (Tree 7−10)

CFAST (Sensor 1)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Ceiling Jet Temperature, NIST/NRC Test 14

Exp (Tree 7−10)

CFAST (Sensor 1)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Ceiling Jet Temperature, NIST/NRC Test 15

Exp (Tree 7−10)

CFAST (Sensor 1)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Ceiling Jet Temperature, NIST/NRC Test 18

Exp (Tree 7−10)

CFAST (Sensor 1)

181
 
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

Time (min)

Volume Fraction

Oxygen Concentration, NIST/NRC Test 1

Exp (O2−1)

Exp (O2−2)

CFAST (O2 1)

CFAST (O2 1)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

Time (min)

Volume Fraction

CO2 Concentration, NIST/NRC Test 1

Exp (CO2−4)

CFAST (CO2 1)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

Time (min)

Volume Fraction

Oxygen Concentration, NIST/NRC Test 7

Exp (O2−1)

Exp (O2−2)

CFAST (O2 1)

CFAST (O2 1)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

Time (min)

Volume Fraction

CO2 Concentration, NIST/NRC Test 7

Exp (CO2−4)

CFAST (CO2 1)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

Time (min)

Volume Fraction

Oxygen Concentration, NIST/NRC Test 2

Exp (O2−1)

Exp (O2−2)

CFAST (O2 1)

CFAST (O2 1)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

Time (min)

Volume Fraction

CO2 Concentration, NIST/NRC Test 2

Exp (CO2−4)

CFAST (CO2 1)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

Time (min)

Volume Fraction

Oxygen Concentration, NIST/NRC Test 8

Exp (O2−1)

Exp (O2−2)

CFAST (O2 1)

CFAST (O2 1)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

Time (min)

Volume Fraction

CO2 Concentration, NIST/NRC Test 8

Exp (CO2−4)

CFAST (CO2 1)

182
 
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

Time (min)

Volume Fraction

Oxygen Concentration, NIST/NRC Test 4

Exp (O2−1)

Exp (O2−2)

CFAST (O2 1)

CFAST (O2 1)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

Time (min)

Volume Fraction

CO2 Concentration, NIST/NRC Test 4

Exp (CO2−4)

CFAST (CO2 1)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

Time (min)

Volume Fraction

Oxygen Concentration, NIST/NRC Test 10

Exp (O2−1)

Exp (O2−2)

CFAST (O2 1)

CFAST (O2 1)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

Time (min)

Volume Fraction

CO2 Concentration, NIST/NRC Test 10

Exp (CO2−4)

CFAST (CO2 1)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

Time (min)

Volume Fraction

Oxygen Concentration, NIST/NRC Test 13

Exp (O2−1)

Exp (O2−2)

CFAST (O2 1)

CFAST (O2 1)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

Time (min)

Volume Fraction

CO2 Concentration, NIST/NRC Test 13

Exp (CO2−4)

CFAST (CO2 1)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

Time (min)

Volume Fraction

Oxygen Concentration, NIST/NRC Test 16

Exp (O2−1)

Exp (O2−2)

CFAST (O2 1)

CFAST (O2 1)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

Time (min)

Volume Fraction

CO2 Concentration, NIST/NRC Test 16

Exp (CO2−4)

CFAST (CO2 1)

183
 
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

Time (min)

Volume Fraction

Oxygen Concentration, NIST/NRC Test 17

Exp (O2−1)

Exp (O2−2)

CFAST (O2 1)

CFAST (O2 1)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

Time (min)

Volume Fraction

CO2 Concentration, NIST/NRC Test 17

Exp (CO2−4)

CFAST (CO2 1)

Open Door Tests to follow
 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

Time (min)

Volume Fraction

Oxygen Concentration, NIST/NRC Test 3

Exp (O2−1)

CFAST (O2 1)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

Time (min)

Volume Fraction

CO2 Concentration, NIST/NRC Test 3

Exp (CO2−4)

CFAST (CO2 1)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

Time (min)

Volume Fraction

Oxygen Concentration, NIST/NRC Test 9

Exp (O2−1)

CFAST (O2 1)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

Time (min)

Volume Fraction

CO2 Concentration, NIST/NRC Test 9

Exp (CO2−4)

CFAST (CO2 1)

184
 
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

Time (min)

Volume Fraction

Oxygen Concentration, NIST/NRC Test 5

Exp (O2−1)

CFAST (O2 1)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

Time (min)

Volume Fraction

CO2 Concentration, NIST/NRC Test 5

Exp (CO2−4)

CFAST (CO2 1)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

Time (min)

Volume Fraction

Oxygen Concentration, NIST/NRC Test 14

Exp (O2−1)

CFAST (O2 1)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

Time (min)

Volume Fraction

CO2 Concentration, NIST/NRC Test 14

Exp (CO2−4)

CFAST (CO2 1)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

Time (min)

Volume Fraction

Oxygen Concentration, NIST/NRC Test 15

Exp (O2−1)

CFAST (O2 1)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

Time (min)

Volume Fraction

CO2 Concentration, NIST/NRC Test 15

Exp (CO2−4)

CFAST (CO2 1)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

Time (min)

Volume Fraction

Oxygen Concentration, NIST/NRC Test 18

Exp (O2−1)

CFAST (O2 1)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

Time (min)

Volume Fraction

CO2 Concentration, NIST/NRC Test 18

Exp (CO2−4)

CFAST (CO2 1)

185
 
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Smoke Density (mg/m

3

)

Smoke Concentration, NIST/NRC Test 1

Exp (Smoke Conc.)

CFAST (Smoke Concentration)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Smoke Density (mg/m

3

)

Smoke Concentration, NIST/NRC Test 7

Exp (Smoke Conc.)

CFAST (Smoke Concentration)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Smoke Density (mg/m

3

)

Smoke Concentration, NIST/NRC Test 2

Exp (Smoke Conc.)

CFAST (Smoke Concentration)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Smoke Density (mg/m

3

)

Smoke Concentration, NIST/NRC Test 8

Exp (Smoke Conc.)

CFAST (Smoke Concentration)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Smoke Density (mg/m

3

)

Smoke Concentration, NIST/NRC Test 4

Exp (Smoke Conc.)

CFAST (Smoke Concentration)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Smoke Density (mg/m

3

)

Smoke Concentration, NIST/NRC Test 10

Exp (Smoke Conc.)

CFAST (Smoke Concentration)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Smoke Density (mg/m

3

)

Smoke Concentration, NIST/NRC Test 13

Exp (Smoke Conc.)

CFAST (Smoke Concentration)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Smoke Density (mg/m

3

)

Smoke Concentration, NIST/NRC Test 16

Exp (Smoke Conc.)

CFAST (Smoke Concentration)

186
 
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

Time (min)

Smoke Density (mg/m

3

)

Smoke Concentration, NIST/NRC Test 17

Exp (Smoke Conc.)

CFAST (Smoke Concentration)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Smoke Density (mg/m

3

)

Smoke Concentration, NIST/NRC Test 3

Exp (Smoke Conc.)

CFAST (Smoke Concentration)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Smoke Density (mg/m

3

)

Smoke Concentration, NIST/NRC Test 9

Exp (Smoke Conc.)

CFAST (Smoke Concentration)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Smoke Density (mg/m

3

)

Smoke Concentration, NIST/NRC Test 5

Exp (Smoke Conc.)

CFAST (Smoke Concentration)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Smoke Density (mg/m

3

)

Smoke Concentration, NIST/NRC Test 14

Exp (Smoke Conc.)

CFAST (Smoke Concentration)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Smoke Density (mg/m

3

)

Smoke Concentration, NIST/NRC Test 15

Exp (Smoke Conc.)

CFAST (Smoke Concentration)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Smoke Density (mg/m

3

)

Smoke Concentration, NIST/NRC Test 18

Exp (Smoke Conc.)

CFAST (Smoke Concentration)

187
 
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

−100

−50

0

50

100

Time (min)

Pressure (Pa)

Pressure, NIST/NRC Test 1

Exp (CompP)

CFAST (Pressure)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

−100

−50

0

50

100

Time (min)

Pressure (Pa)

Pressure, NIST/NRC Test 7

Exp (CompP)

CFAST (Pressure)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

−400

−200

0

200

400

Time (min)

Pressure (Pa)

Pressure, NIST/NRC Test 2

Exp (CompP)

CFAST (Pressure)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

−400

−200

0

200

400

Time (min)

Pressure (Pa)

Pressure, NIST/NRC Test 8

Exp (CompP)

CFAST (Pressure)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

−200

−100

0

100

200

Time (min)

Pressure (Pa)

Pressure, NIST/NRC Test 4

Exp (CompP)

CFAST (Pressure)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

−200

−100

0

100

200

Time (min)

Pressure (Pa)

Pressure, NIST/NRC Test 10

Exp (CompP)

CFAST (Pressure)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

−400

−200

0

200

400

Time (min)

Pressure (Pa)

Pressure, NIST/NRC Test 13

Exp (CompP)

CFAST (Pressure)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

−400

−200

0

200

400

Time (min)

Pressure (Pa)

Pressure, NIST/NRC Test 16

Exp (CompP)

CFAST (Pressure)

188
 
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

−400

−200

0

200

400

Time (min)

Pressure (Pa)

Pressure, NIST/NRC Test 17

Exp (CompP)

CFAST (Pressure)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

−5

−4

−3

−2

−1

0

1

Time (min)

Pressure (Pa)

Pressure, NIST/NRC Test 3

Exp (CompP)

CFAST (Pressure)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

−5

−4

−3

−2

−1

0

1

Time (min)

Pressure (Pa)

Pressure, NIST/NRC Test 9

Exp (CompP)

CFAST (Pressure)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

−5

−4

−3

−2

−1

0

1

Time (min)

Pressure (Pa)

Pressure, NIST/NRC Test 5

Exp (CompP)

CFAST (Pressure)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

−5

−4

−3

−2

−1

0

1

Time (min)

Pressure (Pa)

Pressure, NIST/NRC Test 14

Exp (CompP)

CFAST (Pressure)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

−5

−4

−3

−2

−1

0

1

Time (min)

Pressure (Pa)

Pressure, NIST/NRC Test 15

Exp (CompP)

CFAST (Pressure)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

−5

−4

−3

−2

−1

0

1

Time (min)

Pressure (Pa)

Pressure, NIST/NRC Test 18

Exp (CompP)

CFAST (Pressure)

189
 
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

50

100

150

200

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Cable B Temperature, NIST/NRC Test 1

Exp (B−Ts−14)

CFAST (Target 20)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

50

100

150

200

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Cable B Temperature, NIST/NRC Test 7

Exp (B−Ts−14)

CFAST (Target 20)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Heat Flux, Cable B, NIST/NRC Test 1

Exp (Cable Rad Gauge 3)

Exp (Cable Total Flux 4)

CFAST (Rad Target 20)

CFAST (Total Flux Target 20)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Heat Flux, Cable B, NIST/NRC Test 7

Exp (Cable Rad Gauge 3)

Exp (Cable Total Flux 4)

CFAST (Rad Target 20)

CFAST (Total Flux Target 20)

190
 
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Cable B Temperature, NIST/NRC Test 2

Exp (B−Ts−14)

CFAST (Target 20)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Cable B Temperature, NIST/NRC Test 8

Exp (B−Ts−14)

CFAST (Target 20)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

2

4

6

8

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Heat Flux, Cable B, NIST/NRC Test 2

Exp (Cable Rad Gauge 3)

Exp (Cable Total Flux 4)

CFAST (Rad Target 20)

CFAST (Total Flux Target 20)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

2

4

6

8

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Heat Flux, Cable B, NIST/NRC Test 8

Exp (Cable Rad Gauge 3)

Exp (Cable Total Flux 4)

CFAST (Rad Target 20)

CFAST (Total Flux Target 20)

191
 
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Cable B Temperature, NIST/NRC Test 4

Exp (B−Ts−14)

CFAST (Target 20)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Cable B Temperature, NIST/NRC Test 10

Exp (B−Ts−14)

CFAST (Target 20)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

2

4

6

8

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Heat Flux, Cable B, NIST/NRC Test 4

Exp (Cable Rad Gauge 3)

Exp (Cable Total Flux 4)

CFAST (Rad Target 20)

CFAST (Total Flux Target 20)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

2

4

6

8

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Heat Flux, Cable B, NIST/NRC Test 10

Exp (Cable Rad Gauge 3)

Exp (Cable Total Flux 4)

CFAST (Rad Target 20)

CFAST (Total Flux Target 20)

192
 
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Cable B Temperature, NIST/NRC Test 13

Exp (B−Ts−14)

CFAST (Target 20)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Cable B Temperature, NIST/NRC Test 16

Exp (B−Ts−14)

CFAST (Target 20)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

2

4

6

8

10

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Heat Flux, Cable B, NIST/NRC Test 13

Exp (Cable Rad Gauge 3)

Exp (Cable Total Flux 4)

CFAST (Rad Target 20)

CFAST (Total Flux Target 20)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

2

4

6

8

10

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Heat Flux, Cable B, NIST/NRC Test 16

Exp (Cable Rad Gauge 3)

Exp (Cable Total Flux 4)

CFAST (Rad Target 20)

CFAST (Total Flux Target 20)

193
 
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Cable B Temperature, NIST/NRC Test 3

Exp (B−Ts−14)

CFAST (Target 20)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Cable B Temperature, NIST/NRC Test 9

Exp (B−Ts−14)

CFAST (Target 20)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

2

4

6

8

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Heat Flux, Cable B, NIST/NRC Test 3

Exp (Cable Rad Gauge 3)

Exp (Cable Total Flux 4)

CFAST (Rad Target 20)

CFAST (Total Flux Target 20)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

2

4

6

8

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Heat Flux, Cable B, NIST/NRC Test 9

Exp (Cable Rad Gauge 3)

Exp (Cable Total Flux 4)

CFAST (Rad Target 20)

CFAST (Total Flux Target 20)

194
 
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Cable B Temperature, NIST/NRC Test 5

Exp (B−Ts−14)

CFAST (Target 20)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Cable B Temperature, NIST/NRC Test 14

Exp (B−Ts−14)

CFAST (Target 20)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

2

4

6

8

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Heat Flux, Cable B, NIST/NRC Test 5

Exp (Cable Rad Gauge 3)

Exp (Cable Total Flux 4)

CFAST (Rad Target 20)

CFAST (Total Flux Target 20)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

2

4

6

8

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Heat Flux, Cable B, NIST/NRC Test 14

Exp (Cable Rad Gauge 3)

Exp (Cable Total Flux 4)

CFAST (Rad Target 20)

CFAST (Total Flux Target 20)

195
 
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

200

400

600

800

1000

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Cable B Temperature, NIST/NRC Test 15

Exp (B−Ts−14)

CFAST (Target 20)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Cable B Temperature, NIST/NRC Test 18

Exp (B−Ts−14)

CFAST (Target 20)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

20

40

60

80

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Heat Flux, Cable B, NIST/NRC Test 15

Exp (Cable Rad Gauge 3)

Exp (Cable Total Flux 4)

CFAST (Rad Target 20)

CFAST (Total Flux Target 20)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

2

4

6

8

10

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Heat Flux, Cable B, NIST/NRC Test 18

Exp (Cable Rad Gauge 3)

Exp (Cable Total Flux 4)

CFAST (Rad Target 20)

CFAST (Total Flux Target 20)

196
 
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

50

100

150

200

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Cable D Temperature, NIST/NRC Test 1

Exp (D−Ts−12)

CFAST (Target 18)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

50

100

150

200

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Cable D Temperature, NIST/NRC Test 7

Exp (D−Ts−12)

CFAST (Target 18)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Heat Flux, Cable D, NIST/NRC Test 1

Exp (Cable Rad Gauge 7)

Exp (Cable Total Flux 8)

CFAST (Rad Target 18)

CFAST (Total Flux Target 18)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Heat Flux, Cable D, NIST/NRC Test 7

Exp (Cable Rad Gauge 7)

Exp (Cable Total Flux 8)

CFAST (Rad Target 18)

CFAST (Total Flux Target 18)

197
 
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Cable D Temperature, NIST/NRC Test 2

Exp (D−Ts−12)

CFAST (Target 18)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Cable D Temperature, NIST/NRC Test 8

Exp (D−Ts−12)

CFAST (Target 18)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

2

4

6

8

10

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Heat Flux, Cable D, NIST/NRC Test 2

Exp (Cable Rad Gauge 7)

Exp (Cable Total Flux 8)

CFAST (Rad Target 18)

CFAST (Total Flux Target 18)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

2

4

6

8

10

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Heat Flux, Cable D, NIST/NRC Test 8

Exp (Cable Rad Gauge 7)

Exp (Cable Total Flux 8)

CFAST (Rad Target 18)

CFAST (Total Flux Target 18)

198
 
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Cable D Temperature, NIST/NRC Test 4

Exp (D−Ts−12)

CFAST (Target 18)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Cable D Temperature, NIST/NRC Test 10

Exp (D−Ts−12)

CFAST (Target 18)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

2

4

6

8

10

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Heat Flux, Cable D, NIST/NRC Test 4

Exp (Cable Rad Gauge 7)

Exp (Cable Total Flux 8)

CFAST (Rad Target 18)

CFAST (Total Flux Target 18)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

2

4

6

8

10

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Heat Flux, Cable D, NIST/NRC Test 10

Exp (Cable Rad Gauge 7)

Exp (Cable Total Flux 8)

CFAST (Rad Target 18)

CFAST (Total Flux Target 18)

199
 
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Cable D Temperature, NIST/NRC Test 13

Exp (D−Ts−12)

CFAST (Target 18)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Cable D Temperature, NIST/NRC Test 16

Exp (D−Ts−12)

CFAST (Target 18)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

5

10

15

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Heat Flux, Cable D, NIST/NRC Test 13

Exp (Cable Rad Gauge 7)

Exp (Cable Total Flux 8)

CFAST (Rad Target 18)

CFAST (Total Flux Target 18)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

5

10

15

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Heat Flux, Cable D, NIST/NRC Test 16

Exp (Cable Rad Gauge 7)

Exp (Cable Total Flux 8)

CFAST (Rad Target 18)

CFAST (Total Flux Target 18)

200
 
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Cable D Temperature, NIST/NRC Test 3

Exp (D−Ts−12)

CFAST (Target 18)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Cable D Temperature, NIST/NRC Test 9

Exp (D−Ts−12)

CFAST (Target 18)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

2

4

6

8

10

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Heat Flux, Cable D, NIST/NRC Test 3

Exp (Cable Rad Gauge 7)

Exp (Cable Total Flux 8)

CFAST (Rad Target 18)

CFAST (Total Flux Target 18)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

2

4

6

8

10

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Heat Flux, Cable D, NIST/NRC Test 9

Exp (Cable Rad Gauge 7)

Exp (Cable Total Flux 8)

CFAST (Rad Target 18)

CFAST (Total Flux Target 18)

201
 
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Cable D Temperature, NIST/NRC Test 5

Exp (D−Ts−12)

CFAST (Target 18)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Cable D Temperature, NIST/NRC Test 14

Exp (D−Ts−12)

CFAST (Target 18)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

2

4

6

8

10

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Heat Flux, Cable D, NIST/NRC Test 5

Exp (Cable Rad Gauge 7)

Exp (Cable Total Flux 8)

CFAST (Rad Target 18)

CFAST (Total Flux Target 18)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

2

4

6

8

10

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Heat Flux, Cable D, NIST/NRC Test 14

Exp (Cable Rad Gauge 7)

Exp (Cable Total Flux 8)

CFAST (Rad Target 18)

CFAST (Total Flux Target 18)

202
 
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Cable D Temperature, NIST/NRC Test 15

Exp (D−Ts−12)

CFAST (Target 18)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Cable D Temperature, NIST/NRC Test 18

Exp (D−Ts−12)

CFAST (Target 18)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

5

10

15

20

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Heat Flux, Cable D, NIST/NRC Test 15

Exp (Cable Rad Gauge 7)

Exp (Cable Total Flux 8)

CFAST (Rad Target 18)

CFAST (Total Flux Target 18)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

2

4

6

8

10

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Heat Flux, Cable D, NIST/NRC Test 18

Exp (Cable Rad Gauge 7)

Exp (Cable Total Flux 8)

CFAST (Rad Target 18)

CFAST (Total Flux Target 18)

203
 
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

50

100

150

200

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Cable F Temperature, NIST/NRC Test 1

Exp (F−Ts−20)

CFAST (Target 21)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

50

100

150

200

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Cable F Temperature, NIST/NRC Test 7

Exp (F−Ts−20)

CFAST (Target 21)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Heat Flux, Cable F, NIST/NRC Test 1

Exp (Cable Rad Gauge 1)

Exp (Cable Total Flux Gauge 2)

CFAST (Rad Target 21)

CFAST (Total Flux Target 21)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Heat Flux, Cable F, NIST/NRC Test 7

Exp (Cable Rad Gauge 1)

Exp (Cable Total Flux Gauge 2)

CFAST (Rad Target 21)

CFAST (Total Flux Target 21)

204
 
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Cable F Temperature, NIST/NRC Test 2

Exp (F−Ts−20)

CFAST (Target 21)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Cable F Temperature, NIST/NRC Test 8

Exp (F−Ts−20)

CFAST (Target 21)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Heat Flux, Cable F, NIST/NRC Test 2

Exp (Cable Rad Gauge 1)

Exp (Cable Total Flux Gauge 2)

CFAST (Rad Target 21)

CFAST (Total Flux Target 21)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Heat Flux, Cable F, NIST/NRC Test 8

Exp (Cable Rad Gauge 1)

Exp (Cable Total Flux Gauge 2)

CFAST (Rad Target 21)

CFAST (Total Flux Target 21)

205
 
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Cable F Temperature, NIST/NRC Test 4

Exp (F−Ts−20)

CFAST (Target 21)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Cable F Temperature, NIST/NRC Test 10

Exp (F−Ts−20)

CFAST (Target 21)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Heat Flux, Cable F, NIST/NRC Test 4

Exp (Cable Rad Gauge 1)

Exp (Cable Total Flux Gauge 2)

CFAST (Rad Target 21)

CFAST (Total Flux Target 21)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Heat Flux, Cable F, NIST/NRC Test 10

Exp (Cable Rad Gauge 1)

Exp (Cable Total Flux Gauge 2)

CFAST (Rad Target 21)

CFAST (Total Flux Target 21)

206
 
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Cable F Temperature, NIST/NRC Test 13

Exp (F−Ts−20)

CFAST (Target 21)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Cable F Temperature, NIST/NRC Test 16

Exp (F−Ts−20)

CFAST (Target 21)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

2

4

6

8

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Heat Flux, Cable F, NIST/NRC Test 13

Exp (Cable Rad Gauge 1)

Exp (Cable Total Flux Gauge 2)

CFAST (Rad Target 21)

CFAST (Total Flux Target 21)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

2

4

6

8

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Heat Flux, Cable F, NIST/NRC Test 16

Exp (Cable Rad Gauge 1)

Exp (Cable Total Flux Gauge 2)

CFAST (Rad Target 21)

CFAST (Total Flux Target 21)

207
 
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Cable F Temperature, NIST/NRC Test 3

Exp (F−Ts−20)

CFAST (Target 21)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Cable F Temperature, NIST/NRC Test 9

Exp (F−Ts−20)

CFAST (Target 21)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

2

4

6

8

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Heat Flux, Cable F, NIST/NRC Test 3

Exp (Cable Rad Gauge 1)

Exp (Cable Total Flux Gauge 2)

CFAST (Rad Target 21)

CFAST (Total Flux Target 21)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

2

4

6

8

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Heat Flux, Cable F, NIST/NRC Test 9

Exp (Cable Rad Gauge 1)

Exp (Cable Total Flux Gauge 2)

CFAST (Rad Target 21)

CFAST (Total Flux Target 21)

208
 
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Cable F Temperature, NIST/NRC Test 5

Exp (F−Ts−20)

CFAST (Target 21)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Cable F Temperature, NIST/NRC Test 14

Exp (F−Ts−20)

CFAST (Target 21)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

2

4

6

8

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Heat Flux, Cable F, NIST/NRC Test 5

Exp (Cable Rad Gauge 1)

Exp (Cable Total Flux Gauge 2)

CFAST (Rad Target 21)

CFAST (Total Flux Target 21)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

2

4

6

8

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Heat Flux, Cable F, NIST/NRC Test 14

Exp (Cable Rad Gauge 1)

Exp (Cable Total Flux Gauge 2)

CFAST (Rad Target 21)

CFAST (Total Flux Target 21)

209
 
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

200

400

600

800

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Cable F Temperature, NIST/NRC Test 15

Exp (F−Ts−20)

CFAST (Target 21)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Cable F Temperature, NIST/NRC Test 18

Exp (F−Ts−20)

CFAST (Target 21)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Heat Flux, Cable F, NIST/NRC Test 15

Exp (Cable Rad Gauge 1)

Exp (Cable Total Flux Gauge 2)

CFAST (Rad Target 21)

CFAST (Total Flux Target 21)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Heat Flux, Cable F, NIST/NRC Test 18

Exp (Cable Rad Gauge 1)

Exp (Cable Total Flux Gauge 2)

CFAST (Rad Target 21)

CFAST (Total Flux Target 21)

210
 
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

50

100

150

200

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Cable G Temperature, NIST/NRC Test 1

Exp (Vertical Cable Ts−33)

CFAST (Target 22)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

50

100

150

200

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Cable G Temperature, NIST/NRC Test 7

Exp (Vertical Cable Ts−33)

CFAST (Target 22)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Heat Flux, Cable G, NIST/NRC Test 1

Exp (Cable Rad Gauge 10)

CFAST (Rad Target 22)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Heat Flux, Cable G, NIST/NRC Test 7

Exp (Cable Rad Gauge 10)

Exp (Cable Total Flux 9)

CFAST (Rad Target 22)

CFAST (Total Flux Target 22)

211
 
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Cable G Temperature, NIST/NRC Test 2

Exp (Vertical Cable Ts−33)

CFAST (Target 22)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Cable G Temperature, NIST/NRC Test 8

Exp (Vertical Cable Ts−33)

CFAST (Target 22)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

2

4

6

8

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Heat Flux, Cable G, NIST/NRC Test 2

Exp (Cable Rad Gauge 10)

CFAST (Rad Target 22)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

2

4

6

8

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Heat Flux, Cable G, NIST/NRC Test 8

Exp (Cable Rad Gauge 10)

Exp (Cable Total Flux 9)

CFAST (Rad Target 22)

CFAST (Total Flux Target 22)

212
 
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Cable G Temperature, NIST/NRC Test 4

Exp (Vertical Cable Ts−33)

CFAST (Target 22)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Cable G Temperature, NIST/NRC Test 10

Exp (Vertical Cable Ts−33)

CFAST (Target 22)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

2

4

6

8

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Heat Flux, Cable G, NIST/NRC Test 4

Exp (Cable Rad Gauge 10)

Exp (Cable Total Flux 9)

CFAST (Rad Target 22)

CFAST (Total Flux Target 22)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

2

4

6

8

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Heat Flux, Cable G, NIST/NRC Test 10

Exp (Cable Rad Gauge 10)

Exp (Cable Total Flux 9)

CFAST (Rad Target 22)

CFAST (Total Flux Target 22)

213
 
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Cable G Temperature, NIST/NRC Test 13

Exp (Vertical Cable Ts−33)

CFAST (Target 22)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Cable G Temperature, NIST/NRC Test 16

Exp (Vertical Cable Ts−33)

CFAST (Target 22)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

5

10

15

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Heat Flux, Cable G, NIST/NRC Test 13

Exp (Cable Rad Gauge 10)

Exp (Cable Total Flux 9)

CFAST (Rad Target 22)

CFAST (Total Flux Target 22)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

5

10

15

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Heat Flux, Cable G, NIST/NRC Test 16

Exp (Cable Rad Gauge 10)

Exp (Cable Total Flux 9)

CFAST (Rad Target 22)

CFAST (Total Flux Target 22)

214
 
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Cable G Temperature, NIST/NRC Test 3

Exp (Vertical Cable Ts−33)

CFAST (Target 22)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Cable G Temperature, NIST/NRC Test 9

Exp (Vertical Cable Ts−33)

CFAST (Target 22)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

2

4

6

8

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Heat Flux, Cable G, NIST/NRC Test 3

Exp (Cable Rad Gauge 10)

Exp (Cable Total Flux 9)

CFAST (Rad Target 22)

CFAST (Total Flux Target 22)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

2

4

6

8

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Heat Flux, Cable G, NIST/NRC Test 9

Exp (Cable Rad Gauge 10)

Exp (Cable Total Flux 9)

CFAST (Rad Target 22)

CFAST (Total Flux Target 22)

215
 
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Cable G Temperature, NIST/NRC Test 5

Exp (Vertical Cable Ts−33)

CFAST (Target 22)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Cable G Temperature, NIST/NRC Test 14

Exp (Vertical Cable Ts−33)

CFAST (Target 22)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

2

4

6

8

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Heat Flux, Cable G, NIST/NRC Test 5

Exp (Cable Rad Gauge 10)

Exp (Cable Total Flux 9)

CFAST (Rad Target 22)

CFAST (Total Flux Target 22)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

5

10

15

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Heat Flux, Cable G, NIST/NRC Test 14

Exp (Cable Rad Gauge 10)

Exp (Cable Total Flux 9)

CFAST (Rad Target 22)

CFAST (Total Flux Target 22)

216
 
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Cable G Temperature, NIST/NRC Test 15

Exp (Vertical Cable Ts−33)

CFAST (Target 22)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Cable G Temperature, NIST/NRC Test 18

Exp (Vertical Cable Ts−33)

CFAST (Target 22)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Heat Flux, Cable G, NIST/NRC Test 15

Exp (Cable Rad Gauge 10)

Exp (Cable Total Flux 9)

CFAST (Rad Target 22)

CFAST (Total Flux Target 22)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Heat Flux, Cable G, NIST/NRC Test 18

Exp (Cable Rad Gauge 10)

Exp (Cable Total Flux 9)

CFAST (Rad Target 22)

CFAST (Total Flux Target 22)

217
 
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

50

100

150

200

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Long Wall Temperature, NIST/NRC Test 1

Exp (TC North U−1−2)

Exp (TC South U−4−2)

CFAST (Target 1)

CFAST (Target 5)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

50

100

150

200

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Long Wall Temperature, NIST/NRC Test 7

Exp (TC North U−1−2)

Exp (TC South U−4−2)

CFAST (Target 1)

CFAST (Target 5)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

1

2

3

4

5

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Long Wall Heat Flux, NIST/NRC Test 1

Exp (N G−1)

Exp (S G−4)

CFAST (Target 1)

CFAST (Target 5)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

1

2

3

4

5

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Long Wall Heat Flux, NIST/NRC Test 7

Exp (N G−1)

Exp (S G−4)

CFAST (Target 1)

CFAST (Target 5)

218
 
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

50

100

150

200

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Long Wall Temperature, NIST/NRC Test 2

Exp (TC North U−1−2)

Exp (TC South U−4−2)

CFAST (Target 1)

CFAST (Target 5)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

50

100

150

200

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Long Wall Temperature, NIST/NRC Test 8

Exp (TC North U−1−2)

Exp (TC North U−4−2)

CFAST (Target 1)

CFAST (Target 2)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

1

2

3

4

5

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Long Wall Heat Flux, NIST/NRC Test 2

Exp (N G−1)

Exp (S G−4)

CFAST (Target 1)

CFAST (Target 5)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

1

2

3

4

5

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Long Wall Heat Flux, NIST/NRC Test 8

Exp (N G−1)

Exp (N G−4)

CFAST (Target 1)

CFAST (Target 2)

219
 
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

50

100

150

200

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Long Wall Temperature, NIST/NRC Test 4

Exp (TC North U−1−2)

Exp (TC North U−4−2)

CFAST (Target 1)

CFAST (Target 2)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

50

100

150

200

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Long Wall Temperature, NIST/NRC Test 10

Exp (TC North U−1−2)

Exp (TC North U−4−2)

CFAST (Target 1)

CFAST (Target 2)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

1

2

3

4

5

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Long Wall Heat Flux, NIST/NRC Test 4

Exp (N G−1)

Exp (N G−4)

CFAST (Target 1)

CFAST (Target 2)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

1

2

3

4

5

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Long Wall Heat Flux, NIST/NRC Test 10

Exp (N G−1)

Exp (N G−4)

CFAST (Target 1)

CFAST (Target 2)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Long Wall Temperature, NIST/NRC Test 13

Exp (TC North U−1−2)

Exp (TC North U−4−2)

CFAST (Target 1)

CFAST (Target 2)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Long Wall Temperature, NIST/NRC Test 16

Exp (TC North U−1−2)

Exp (TC North U−4−2)

CFAST (Target 1)

CFAST (Target 2)

Experimental Heat Flux Data Not Available Experimental Heat Flux Data Not Available
 

220
 
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Long Wall Temperature, NIST/NRC Test 3

Exp (TC North U−1−2)

Exp (TC North U−4−2)

CFAST (Target 1)

CFAST (Target 2)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Long Wall Temperature, NIST/NRC Test 9

Exp (TC North U−1−2)

Exp (TC North U−4−2)

CFAST (Target 1)

CFAST (Target 2)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

1

2

3

4

5

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Long Wall Heat Flux, NIST/NRC Test 3

Exp (N G−1)

Exp (N G−4)

CFAST (Target 1)

CFAST (Target 2)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

1

2

3

4

5

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Long Wall Heat Flux, NIST/NRC Test 9

Exp (N G−1)

Exp (N G−4)

CFAST (Target 1)

CFAST (Target 2)

221
 
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Long Wall Temperature, NIST/NRC Test 5

Exp (TC North U−1−2)

Exp (TC North U−4−2)

CFAST (Target 1)

CFAST (Target 2)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Long Wall Temperature, NIST/NRC Test 14

Exp (TC North U−1−2)

Exp (TC North U−4−2)

CFAST (Target 1)

CFAST (Target 2)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

1

2

3

4

5

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Long Wall Heat Flux, NIST/NRC Test 5

Exp (N G−1)

Exp (N G−4)

CFAST (Target 1)

CFAST (Target 2)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

1

2

3

4

5

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Long Wall Heat Flux, NIST/NRC Test 14

Exp (N G−1)

Exp (N G−4)

CFAST (Target 1)

CFAST (Target 2)

222
 
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Long Wall Temperature, NIST/NRC Test 15

Exp (TC South U−1−2)

Exp (TC South U−3−2)

CFAST (Target 3)

CFAST (Target 4)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Long Wall Temperature, NIST/NRC Test 18

Exp (TC South U−1−2)

Exp (TC South U−4−2)

CFAST (Target 3)

CFAST (Target 5)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

1

2

3

4

5

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Long Wall Heat Flux, NIST/NRC Test 15

Exp (S G−1)

Exp (S G−3)

CFAST (Target 3)

CFAST (Target 4)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

1

2

3

4

5

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Long Wall Heat Flux, NIST/NRC Test 18

Exp (N G−1)

CFAST (Target 1)

223
 
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

50

100

150

200

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Short Wall Temperature, NIST/NRC Test 1

Exp (TC East U−1−2)

Exp (TC East U−2−2)

CFAST (Target 6)

CFAST (Target 7)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

50

100

150

200

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Short Wall Temperature, NIST/NRC Test 7

Exp (TC East U−3−2)

Exp (TC East U−2−2)

CFAST (Target 8)

CFAST (Target 7)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

1

2

3

4

5

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Short Wall Heat Flux, NIST/NRC Test 1

Exp (E G−1)

Exp (E G−2)

CFAST (Target 6)

CFAST (Target 7)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

1

2

3

4

5

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Short Wall Heat Flux, NIST/NRC Test 7

Exp (E G−3)

Exp (E G−2)

CFAST (Target 8)

CFAST (Target 7)

224
 
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

50

100

150

200

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Short Wall Temperature, NIST/NRC Test 2

Exp (TC East U−1−2)

Exp (TC East U−2−2)

CFAST (Target 6)

CFAST (Target 7)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

50

100

150

200

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Short Wall Temperature, NIST/NRC Test 8

Exp (TC East U−1−2)

Exp (TC East U−2−2)

CFAST (Target 6)

CFAST (Target 7)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

1

2

3

4

5

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Short Wall Heat Flux, NIST/NRC Test 2

Exp (E G−1)

Exp (E G−2)

CFAST (Target 6)

CFAST (Target 7)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

1

2

3

4

5

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Short Wall Heat Flux, NIST/NRC Test 8

Exp (E G−1)

Exp (E G−2)

CFAST (Target 6)

CFAST (Target 7)

225
 
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

50

100

150

200

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Short Wall Temperature, NIST/NRC Test 4

Exp (TC East U−1−2)

Exp (TC East U−2−2)

CFAST (Target 6)

CFAST (Target 7)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

50

100

150

200

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Short Wall Temperature, NIST/NRC Test 10

Exp (TC East U−3−2)

Exp (TC East U−2−2)

CFAST (Target 8)

CFAST (Target 7)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

1

2

3

4

5

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Short Wall Heat Flux, NIST/NRC Test 4

Exp (E G−1)

Exp (E G−2)

CFAST (Target 6)

CFAST (Target 7)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

1

2

3

4

5

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Short Wall Heat Flux, NIST/NRC Test 10

Exp (E G−3)

Exp (E G−2)

CFAST (Target 8)

CFAST (Target 7)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

50

100

150

200

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Short Wall Temperature, NIST/NRC Test 13

Exp (TC East U−1−2)

Exp (TC East U−4−2)

CFAST (Target 6)

CFAST (Target 9)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

50

100

150

200

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Short Wall Temperature, NIST/NRC Test 16

Exp (TC East U−1−2)

Exp (TC East U−2−2)

CFAST (Target 6)

CFAST (Target 7)

Experimental Heat Flux Data Not Available Experimental Heat Flux Data Not Available
 

226
 
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

50

100

150

200

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Short Wall Temperature, NIST/NRC Test 3

Exp (TC East U−1−2)

Exp (TC East U−2−2)

CFAST (Target 6)

CFAST (Target 7)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

50

100

150

200

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Short Wall Temperature, NIST/NRC Test 9

Exp (TC East U−3−2)

Exp (TC East U−4−2)

CFAST (Target 8)

CFAST (Target 9)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

1

2

3

4

5

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Short Wall Heat Flux, NIST/NRC Test 3

Exp (E G−1)

Exp (E G−2)

CFAST (Target 6)

CFAST (Target 7)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

1

2

3

4

5

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Short Wall Heat Flux, NIST/NRC Test 9

Exp (E G−3)

CFAST (Target 8)

227
 
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

50

100

150

200

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Short Wall Temperature, NIST/NRC Test 5

Exp (TC East U−1−2)

Exp (TC East U−2−2)

CFAST (Target 6)

CFAST (Target 7)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

50

100

150

200

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Short Wall Temperature, NIST/NRC Test 14

Exp (TC East U−3−2)

Exp (TC East U−2−2)

CFAST (Target 8)

CFAST (Target 7)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

1

2

3

4

5

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Short Wall Heat Flux, NIST/NRC Test 5

Exp (E G−1)

Exp (E G−2)

CFAST (Target 6)

CFAST (Target 7)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

1

2

3

4

5

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Short Wall Heat Flux, NIST/NRC Test 14

Exp (E G−1)

Exp (E G−2)

CFAST (Target 6)

CFAST (Target 7)

228
 
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

50

100

150

200

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Short Wall Temperature, NIST/NRC Test 15

Exp (TC East U−3−2)

Exp (TC East U−2−2)

CFAST (Target 8)

CFAST (Target 7)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

50

100

150

200

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Short Wall Temperature, NIST/NRC Test 18

Exp (TC East U−3−2)

Exp (TC East U−2−2)

CFAST (Target 8)

CFAST (Target 7)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

1

2

3

4

5

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Short Wall Heat Flux, NIST/NRC Test 15

Exp (E G−1)

Exp (E G−2)

CFAST (Target 6)

CFAST (Target 7)

Experimental Heat Flux Data Not Available
 

229
 
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Ceiling Temperature, NIST/NRC Test 4

Exp (TC Ceiling U−1−2)

Exp (TC Ceiling C−4−2)

CFAST (Target 10)

CFAST (Target 12)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Ceiling Temperature, NIST/NRC Test 10

Exp (TC Ceiling U−1−2)

Exp (TC Ceiling C−4−2)

CFAST (Target 10)

CFAST (Target 12)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

1

2

3

4

5

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Ceiling Heat Flux, NIST/NRC Test 4

Exp C G−1

Exp C G−4

CFAST (Target 10)

CFAST (Target 12)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

1

2

3

4

5

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Ceiling Heat Flux, NIST/NRC Test 10

Exp C G−1

CFAST (Target 10)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Ceiling Temperature, NIST/NRC Test 13

Exp (TC Ceiling C−7−2)

Exp (TC Ceiling C−5−2)

CFAST (Target 14)

CFAST (Target 13)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Ceiling Temperature, NIST/NRC Test 16

Exp (TC Ceiling C−7−2)

Exp (TC Ceiling C−5−2)

CFAST (Target 14)

CFAST (Target 13)

Experimental Heat Flux Data Not Available Experimental Heat Flux Data Not Available
 

230
 
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Ceiling Temperature, NIST/NRC Test 3

Exp (TC Ceiling U−1−2)

Exp (TC Ceiling C−4−2)

CFAST (Target 10)

CFAST (Target 12)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Ceiling Temperature, NIST/NRC Test 9

Exp (TC Ceiling C−2−2)

Exp (TC Ceiling C−4−2)

CFAST (Target 11)

CFAST (Target 12)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

1

2

3

4

5

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Ceiling Heat Flux, NIST/NRC Test 3

Exp C G−1

Exp C G−4

CFAST (Target 10)

CFAST (Target 12)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

1

2

3

4

5

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Ceiling Heat Flux, NIST/NRC Test 9

Exp C G−2

Exp C G−4

CFAST (Target 11)

CFAST (Target 12)

231
 
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Ceiling Temperature, NIST/NRC Test 5

Exp (TC Ceiling U−1−2)

Exp (TC Ceiling C−5−2)

CFAST (Target 10)

CFAST (Target 13)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Ceiling Temperature, NIST/NRC Test 14

Exp (TC Ceiling U−1−2)

Exp (TC Ceiling C−5−2)

CFAST (Target 10)

CFAST (Target 13)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

1

2

3

4

5

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Ceiling Heat Flux, NIST/NRC Test 5

Exp C G−1

Exp C G−5

CFAST (Target 10)

CFAST (Target 13)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

1

2

3

4

5

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Ceiling Heat Flux, NIST/NRC Test 14

Exp C G−1

CFAST (Target 10)

232
 
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Ceiling Temperature, NIST/NRC Test 15

Exp (TC Ceiling U−1−2)

Exp (TC Ceiling C−4−2)

CFAST (Target 10)

CFAST (Target 12)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Ceiling Temperature, NIST/NRC Test 18

Exp (TC Ceiling U−1−2)

Exp (TC Ceiling C−4−2)

CFAST (Target 10)

CFAST (Target 12)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

1

2

3

4

5

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Ceiling Heat Flux, NIST/NRC Test 18

Exp C G−1

CFAST (Target 10)

Experimental Heat Flux Data Not Available
 

233
 
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

50

100

150

200

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Floor Temperature, NIST/NRC Test 1

Exp (TC Floor U−1−2)

Exp (TC Floor U−4−2)

CFAST (Target 15)

CFAST (Target 17)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

50

100

150

200

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Floor Temperature, NIST/NRC Test 7

Exp (TC Floor U−1−2)

Exp (TC Floor U−4−2)

CFAST (Target 15)

CFAST (Target 17)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

1

2

3

4

5

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Floor Heat Flux, NIST/NRC Test 1

Exp F G−1

Exp F G−4

CFAST (Target 15)

CFAST (Target 17)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

1

2

3

4

5

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Floor Heat Flux, NIST/NRC Test 7

Exp F G−1

Exp F G−4

CFAST (Target 15)

CFAST (Target 17)

234
 
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

50

100

150

200

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Floor Temperature, NIST/NRC Test 2

Exp (TC Floor U−1−2)

Exp (TC Floor U−4−2)

CFAST (Target 15)

CFAST (Target 17)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

50

100

150

200

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Floor Temperature, NIST/NRC Test 8

Exp (TC Floor U−1−2)

Exp (TC Floor U−4−2)

CFAST (Target 15)

CFAST (Target 17)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

1

2

3

4

5

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Floor Heat Flux, NIST/NRC Test 2

Exp F G−1

Exp F G−4

CFAST (Target 15)

CFAST (Target 17)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

1

2

3

4

5

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Floor Heat Flux, NIST/NRC Test 8

Exp F G−1

Exp F G−4

CFAST (Target 15)

CFAST (Target 16)

235
 
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

50

100

150

200

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Floor Temperature, NIST/NRC Test 4

Exp (TC Floor U−1−2)

Exp (TC Floor U−4−2)

CFAST (Target 15)

CFAST (Target 17)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

50

100

150

200

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Floor Temperature, NIST/NRC Test 10

Exp (TC Floor U−1−2)

Exp (TC Floor U−4−2)

CFAST (Target 15)

CFAST (Target 17)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

1

2

3

4

5

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Floor Heat Flux, NIST/NRC Test 4

Exp F G−1

Exp F G−4

CFAST (Target 15)

CFAST (Target 17)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

1

2

3

4

5

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Floor Heat Flux, NIST/NRC Test 10

Exp F G−1

Exp F G−4

CFAST (Target 15)

CFAST (Target 17)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

50

100

150

200

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Floor Temperature, NIST/NRC Test 13

Exp (TC Floor U−1−2)

Exp (TC Floor U−2−2)

CFAST (Target 15)

CFAST (Target 16)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

50

100

150

200

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Floor Temperature, NIST/NRC Test 16

Exp (TC Floor U−1−2)

Exp (TC Floor U−2−2)

CFAST (Target 15)

CFAST (Target 16)

Experimental Heat Flux Data Not Available Experimental Heat Flux Data Not Available
 

236
 
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

50

100

150

200

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Floor Temperature, NIST/NRC Test 3

Exp (TC Floor U−1−2)

Exp (TC Floor U−2−2)

CFAST (Target 15)

CFAST (Target 16)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

50

100

150

200

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Floor Temperature, NIST/NRC Test 9

Exp (TC Floor U−1−2)

Exp (TC Floor U−2−2)

CFAST (Target 15)

CFAST (Target 16)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

1

2

3

4

5

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Floor Heat Flux, NIST/NRC Test 3

Exp F G−1

Exp F G−2

CFAST (Target 15)

CFAST (Target 16)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

1

2

3

4

5

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Floor Heat Flux, NIST/NRC Test 9

Exp F G−1

Exp F G−2

CFAST (Target 15)

CFAST (Target 17)

237
 
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Floor Temperature, NIST/NRC Test 5

Exp (TC Floor U−1−2)

Exp (TC Floor U−4−2)

CFAST (Target 15)

CFAST (Target 17)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

50

100

150

200

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Floor Temperature, NIST/NRC Test 14

Exp (TC Floor U−1−2)

Exp (TC Floor U−2−2)

CFAST (Target 15)

CFAST (Target 16)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

1

2

3

4

5

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Floor Heat Flux, NIST/NRC Test 5

Exp F G−1

Exp F G−4

CFAST (Target 15)

CFAST (Target 17)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

1

2

3

4

5

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Floor Heat Flux, NIST/NRC Test 14

Exp F G−1

Exp F G−2

CFAST (Target 15)

CFAST (Target 16)

238
 
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

50

100

150

200

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Floor Temperature, NIST/NRC Test 15

Exp (TC Floor U−1−2)

Exp (TC Floor U−2−2)

CFAST (Target 15)

CFAST (Target 16)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

50

100

150

200

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Floor Temperature, NIST/NRC Test 18

Exp (TC Floor U−1−2)

Exp (TC Floor U−2−2)

CFAST (Target 15)

CFAST (Target 16)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

1

2

3

4

5

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Floor Heat Flux, NIST/NRC Test 15

Exp F G−1

Exp F G−2

CFAST (Target 15)

CFAST (Target 16)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

1

2

3

4

5

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Floor Heat Flux, NIST/NRC Test 18

Exp F G−1

Exp F G−2

CFAST (Target 15)

CFAST (Target 16)

239
 
C.11 PRISME DOOR Experiments 

The compartments in the PRISME DOOR experiments contained vertical arrays of thermocouples 

to measure the HGL temperature and depth. Each array contained 18 TCs and each compartment 

included three arrays. The array above the fire was excluded from the calculation of the HGL 

temperature and depth. 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

PRISME DOOR Test 1, Room 1 HGL Temp.

Exp (T_upper)

CFAST (T_upper)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

1

2

3

4

5

Time (min)

Height (m)

PRISME DOOR Test 1, Room 1 HGL Height

Exp (Height)

CFAST (Height)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

PRISME DOOR Test 2, Room 1 HGL Temp.

Exp (T_upper)

CFAST (T_upper)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

1

2

3

4

5

Time (min)

Height (m)

PRISME DOOR Test 2, Room 1 HGL Height

Exp (Height)

CFAST (Height)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

PRISME DOOR Test 3, Room 1 HGL Temp.

Exp (T_upper)

CFAST (T_upper)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

1

2

3

4

5

Time (min)

Height (m)

PRISME DOOR Test 3, Room 1 HGL Height

Exp (Height)

CFAST (Height)

240
 
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

PRISME DOOR Test 4, Room 1 HGL Temp.

Exp (T_upper)

CFAST (T_upper)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

1

2

3

4

5

Time (min)

Height (m)

PRISME DOOR Test 4, Room 1 HGL Height

Exp (Height)

CFAST (Height)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

100

200

300

400

500

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

PRISME DOOR Test 5, Room 1 HGL Temp.

Exp (T_upper)

CFAST (T_upper)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

1

2

3

4

5

Time (min)

Height (m)

PRISME DOOR Test 5, Room 1 HGL Height

Exp (Height)

CFAST (Height)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

100

200

300

400

500

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

PRISME DOOR Test 6, Room 1 HGL Temp.

Exp (T_upper)

CFAST (T_upper)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

1

2

3

4

5

Time (min)

Height (m)

PRISME DOOR Test 6, Room 1 HGL Height

Exp (Height)

CFAST (Height)

241
 
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

PRISME DOOR Test 1, Room 2 HGL Temp.

Exp (T_upper)

CFAST (T_upper)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

1

2

3

4

5

Time (min)

Height (m)

PRISME DOOR Test 1, Room 2 HGL Height

Exp (Height)

CFAST (Height)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

PRISME DOOR Test 2, Room 2 HGL Temp.

Exp (T_upper)

CFAST (T_upper)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

1

2

3

4

5

Time (min)

Height (m)

PRISME DOOR Test 2, Room 2 HGL Height

Exp (Height)

CFAST (Height)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

PRISME DOOR Test 3, Room 2 HGL Temp.

Exp (T_upper)

CFAST (T_upper)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

1

2

3

4

5

Time (min)

Height (m)

PRISME DOOR Test 3, Room 2 HGL Height

Exp (Height)

CFAST (Height)

242
 
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

PRISME DOOR Test 4, Room 2 HGL Temp.

Exp (T_upper)

CFAST (T_upper)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

1

2

3

4

5

Time (min)

Height (m)

PRISME DOOR Test 4, Room 2 HGL Height

Exp (Height)

CFAST (Height)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

PRISME DOOR Test 5, Room 2 HGL Temp.

Exp (T_upper)

CFAST (T_upper)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

1

2

3

4

5

Time (min)

Height (m)

PRISME DOOR Test 5, Room 2 HGL Height

Exp (Height)

CFAST (Height)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

PRISME DOOR Test 6, Room 2 HGL Temp.

Exp (T_upper)

CFAST (T_upper)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

1

2

3

4

5

Time (min)

Height (m)

PRISME DOOR Test 6, Room 2 HGL Height

Exp (Height)

CFAST (Height)

243
 
In the PRISME DOOR experiments, the uppermost TC in the vertical arrays were used to 

measure the ceiling jet temperature. These TCs were approximately 10 cm below the ceiling. 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

100

200

300

400

500

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

PRISME DOOR Test 1, Room 1 Ceiling Jet

Exp (TG_L1_NW_390)

Exp (TG_L1_SE_390)

CFAST (TG_L1_NW_390)

CFAST (TG_L1_SE_390)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

100

200

300

400

500

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

PRISME DOOR Test 2, Room 1 Ceiling Jet

Exp (TG_L1_NW_390)

Exp (TG_L1_SE_390)

CFAST (TG_L1_NW_390)

CFAST (TG_L1_SE_390)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

100

200

300

400

500

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

PRISME DOOR Test 3, Room 1 Ceiling Jet

Exp (TG_L1_NW_390)

Exp (TG_L1_SE_390)

CFAST (TG_L1_NW_390)

CFAST (TG_L1_SE_390)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

100

200

300

400

500

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

PRISME DOOR Test 4, Room 1 Ceiling Jet

Exp (TG_L1_NW_390)

Exp (TG_L1_SE_390)

CFAST (TG_L1_NW_390)

CFAST (TG_L1_SE_390)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

PRISME DOOR Test 5, Room 1 Ceiling Jet

Exp (TG_L1_NW_390)

Exp (TG_L1_SE_390)

CFAST (TG_L1_NW_390)

CFAST (TG_L1_SE_390)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

PRISME DOOR Test 6, Room 1 Ceiling Jet

Exp (TG_L1_NW_390)

Exp (TG_L1_SE_390)

CFAST (TG_L1_NW_390)

CFAST (TG_L1_SE_390)

244
 
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

PRISME DOOR Test 1, Room 2 Ceiling Jet

Exp (TG_L2_NE_390)

Exp (TG_L2_CC_390)

Exp (TG_L2_SW_390)

CFAST (TG_L2_NE_390)

CFAST (TG_L2_CC_390)

CFAST (TG_L2_SW_390)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

PRISME DOOR Test 2, Room 2 Ceiling Jet

Exp (TG_L2_NE_390)

Exp (TG_L2_CC_390)

Exp (TG_L2_SW_390)

CFAST (TG_L2_NE_390)

CFAST (TG_L2_CC_390)

CFAST (TG_L2_SW_390)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

PRISME DOOR Test 3, Room 2 Ceiling Jet

Exp (TG_L2_NE_390)

Exp (TG_L2_CC_390)

Exp (TG_L2_SW_390)

CFAST (TG_L2_NE_390)

CFAST (TG_L2_CC_390)

CFAST (TG_L2_SW_390)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

PRISME DOOR Test 4, Room 2 Ceiling Jet

Exp (TG_L2_NE_390)

Exp (TG_L2_CC_390)

Exp (TG_L2_SW_390)

CFAST (TG_L2_NE_390)

CFAST (TG_L2_CC_390)

CFAST (TG_L2_SW_390)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

PRISME DOOR Test 5, Room 2 Ceiling Jet

Exp (TG_L2_NE_390)

Exp (TG_L2_CC_390)

Exp (TG_L2_SW_390)

CFAST (TG_L2_NE_390)

CFAST (TG_L2_CC_390)

CFAST (TG_L2_SW_390)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

PRISME DOOR Test 6, Room 2 Ceiling Jet

Exp (TG_L2_NE_390)

Exp (TG_L2_CC_390)

Exp (TG_L2_SW_390)

CFAST (TG_L2_NE_390)

CFAST (TG_L2_CC_390)

CFAST (TG_L2_SW_390)

245
 
Each compartment in the PRISME DOOR experiments contained an oxygen and carbon dioxide measurement in the upper (haut) and lower (bas) layers. 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

Time (min)

Volume Fraction

PRISME DOOR Test 1, Room 1 O2

Exp (O2_L1_HAUT)

Exp (O2_L1_BAS)

CFAST (ULO21)

CFAST (ULO21)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

Time (min)

Volume Fraction

PRISME DOOR Test 1, Room 1 CO2

Exp (CO2_L1_HAUT)

Exp (CO2_L1_BAS)

CFAST (ULCO21)

CFAST (ULCO21)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

Time (min)

Volume Fraction

PRISME DOOR Test 2, Room 1 O2

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

Time (min)

Volume Fraction

PRISME DOOR Test 2, Room 1 CO2

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

Time (min)

Volume Fraction

PRISME DOOR Test 3, Room 1 O2

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

Time (min)

Volume Fraction

PRISME DOOR Test 3, Room 1 CO2

246
 
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

Time (min)

Volume Fraction

PRISME DOOR Test 4, Room 1 O2

Exp (O2_L1_HAUT)

Exp (O2_L1_BAS)

CFAST (ULO21)

CFAST (ULO21)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

Time (min)

Volume Fraction

PRISME DOOR Test 4, Room 1 CO2

Exp (CO2_L1_HAUT)

Exp (CO2_L1_BAS)

CFAST (ULCO21)

CFAST (ULCO21)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

Time (min)

Volume Fraction

PRISME DOOR Test 5, Room 1 O2

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

Time (min)

Volume Fraction

PRISME DOOR Test 5, Room 1 CO2

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

Time (min)

Volume Fraction

PRISME DOOR Test 6, Room 1 O2

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

Time (min)

Volume Fraction

PRISME DOOR Test 6, Room 1 CO2

247
 
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

Time (min)

Volume Fraction

PRISME DOOR Test 1, Room 2 O2

Exp (O2_L2_HAUT)

Exp (O2_L2_BAS)

CFAST (ULO22)

CFAST (ULO22)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

Time (min)

Volume Fraction

PRISME DOOR Test 1, Room 2 CO2

Exp (CO2_L2_HAUT)

Exp (CO2_L2_BAS)

CFAST (ULCO22)

CFAST (ULCO22)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

Time (min)

Volume Fraction

PRISME DOOR Test 2, Room 2 O2

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

Time (min)

Volume Fraction

PRISME DOOR Test 2, Room 2 CO2

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

Time (min)

Volume Fraction

PRISME DOOR Test 3, Room 2 O2

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

Time (min)

Volume Fraction

PRISME DOOR Test 3, Room 2 CO2

248
 
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

Time (min)

Volume Fraction

PRISME DOOR Test 4, Room 2 O2

Exp (O2_L2_HAUT)

Exp (O2_L2_BAS)

CFAST (ULO22)

CFAST (ULO22)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

Time (min)

Volume Fraction

PRISME DOOR Test 4, Room 2 CO2

Exp (CO2_L2_HAUT)

Exp (CO2_L2_BAS)

CFAST (ULCO22)

CFAST (ULCO22)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

Time (min)

Volume Fraction

PRISME DOOR Test 5, Room 2 O2

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

Time (min)

Volume Fraction

PRISME DOOR Test 5, Room 2 CO2

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

Time (min)

Volume Fraction

PRISME DOOR Test 6, Room 2 O2

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

Time (min)

Volume Fraction

PRISME DOOR Test 6, Room 2 CO2

249
 
The PRISME experiments were conducted in a relatively well-sealed set of compartments with 

a well-controlled ventilation system. Supply air was forced into and exhaust products extracted 

from the test compartments via two fans and a fairly extensive ventilation network. The air flow 

rates and nodal pressures were measured throughout the system. The CFAST simulations represented the ventilation system as a simple matching nominal flow into and out of each compartment 

taken from the test reports for the experiments. 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

−1000

−500

0

500

1000

Time (min)

Pressure (Pa)

PRISME DOOR Test 1, Room 1 Pressure

Exp (P_L1_MIN)

CFAST (PRS_1)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

−1000

−500

0

500

1000

Time (min)

Pressure (Pa)

PRISME DOOR Test 2, Room 1 Pressure

Exp (P_L1_MIN)

CFAST (PRS_1)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

−1000

−500

0

500

1000

Time (min)

Pressure (Pa)

PRISME DOOR Test 3, Room 1 Pressure

Exp (P_L1_MIN)

CFAST (PRS_1)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

−1000

−500

0

500

1000

Time (min)

Pressure (Pa)

PRISME DOOR Test 4, Room 1 Pressure

Exp (P_L1_MIN)

CFAST (PRS_1)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

−500

0

500

1000

1500

Time (min)

Pressure (Pa)

PRISME DOOR Test 5, Room 1 Pressure

Exp (P_L1_MIN)

CFAST (PRS_1)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

−1000

−500

0

500

1000

Time (min)

Pressure (Pa)

PRISME DOOR Test 6, Room 1 Pressure

Exp (P_L1_MOY)

CFAST (PRS_1)

250
 
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

−1000

−500

0

500

1000

Time (min)

Pressure (Pa)

PRISME DOOR Test 1, Room 2 Pressure

Exp (P_L2_MIN)

CFAST (PRS_2)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

−1000

−500

0

500

1000

Time (min)

Pressure (Pa)

PRISME DOOR Test 2, Room 2 Pressure

Exp (P_L2_MIN)

CFAST (PRS_2)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

−1000

−500

0

500

1000

Time (min)

Pressure (Pa)

PRISME DOOR Test 3, Room 2 Pressure

Exp (P_L2_MIN)

CFAST (PRS_2)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

−1000

−500

0

500

1000

Time (min)

Pressure (Pa)

PRISME DOOR Test 4, Room 2 Pressure

Exp (P_L2_MIN)

CFAST (PRS_2)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

−500

0

500

1000

1500

Time (min)

Pressure (Pa)

PRISME DOOR Test 5, Room 2 Pressure

Exp (P_L2_MIN)

CFAST (PRS_2)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

−1000

−500

0

500

1000

Time (min)

Pressure (Pa)

PRISME DOOR Test 6, Room 2 Pressure

Exp (P_L2_MOY)

CFAST (PRS_2)

251
 
For the PRISME Door experiments, the temperatures of surrogate cables were predicted directly from the predicted thermal environment of the entire compartment. The measurement points 

in these experiments were labelled, for example, TCA L2 HE SURF, meaning thermocouple of 

the “analytical” cable, compartment 2, haut (high), east, surface. BW means bas (low) west, for 

example. Thermocouples were positioned on the cable surface (SURF), halfway towards center 

(INTER), and center (CENTRE). 

252
 
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

50

100

150

200

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

PRISME DOOR Test 1, Room 1 Target Temp.

Exp (TCA_L1_BW_SURF)

Exp (TCA_L1_BW_INTER)

Exp (TCA_L1_BW_CENTRE)

CFAST (TCA_L1_BW_SURF)

CFAST (TCA_L1_BW_INTER)

CFAST (TCA_L1_BW_CENTRE)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

50

100

150

200

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

PRISME DOOR Test 1, Room 1 Target Temp.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

50

100

150

200

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

PRISME DOOR Test 1, Room 1 Target Temp.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

50

100

150

200

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

PRISME DOOR Test 1, Room 1 Target Temp.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

50

100

150

200

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

PRISME DOOR Test 1, Room 1 Target Temp.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

50

100

150

200

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

PRISME DOOR Test 1, Room 1 Target Temp.

253
 
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

PRISME DOOR Test 1, Room 1 Target Temp.

Exp (TCA_L1_HW_SURF)

Exp (TCA_L1_HW_INTER)

Exp (TCA_L1_HW_CENTRE)

CFAST (TCA_L1_HW_SURF)

CFAST (TCA_L1_HW_INTER)

CFAST (TCA_L1_HW_CENTRE)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

PRISME DOOR Test 1, Room 1 Target Temp.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

PRISME DOOR Test 1, Room 1 Target Temp.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

PRISME DOOR Test 1, Room 1 Target Temp.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

PRISME DOOR Test 1, Room 1 Target Temp.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

PRISME DOOR Test 1, Room 1 Target Temp.

254
 
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

50

100

150

200

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

PRISME DOOR Test 1, Room 2 Target Temp.

Exp (TCA_L2_BE_SURF)

Exp (TCA_L2_BE_INTER)

Exp (TCA_L2_BE_CENTRE)

CFAST (TCA_L2_BE_SURF)

CFAST (TCA_L2_BE_INTER)

CFAST (TCA_L2_BE_CENTRE)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

50

100

150

200

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

PRISME DOOR Test 1, Room 2 Target Temp.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

50

100

150

200

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

PRISME DOOR Test 1, Room 2 Target Temp.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

50

100

150

200

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

PRISME DOOR Test 1, Room 2 Target Temp.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

50

100

150

200

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

PRISME DOOR Test 1, Room 2 Target Temp.

255
 
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

50

100

150

200

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

PRISME DOOR Test 1, Room 2 Target Temp.

Exp (TCA_L2_HE_SURF)

Exp (TCA_L2_HE_INTER)

Exp (TCA_L2_HE_CENTRE)

CFAST (TCA_L2_HE_SURF)

CFAST (TCA_L2_HE_INTER)

CFAST (TCA_L2_HE_CENTRE)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

50

100

150

200

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

PRISME DOOR Test 1, Room 2 Target Temp.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

50

100

150

200

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

PRISME DOOR Test 1, Room 2 Target Temp.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

50

100

150

200

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

PRISME DOOR Test 1, Room 2 Target Temp.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

50

100

150

200

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

PRISME DOOR Test 1, Room 2 Target Temp.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

50

100

150

200

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

PRISME DOOR Test 1, Room 2 Target Temp.

256
 
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

50

100

150

200

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

PRISME DOOR Test 1, Room 2 Target Temp.

Exp (TCA_L2_HW_SURF)

Exp (TCA_L2_HW_INTER)

Exp (TCA_L2_HW_CENTRE)

CFAST (TCA_L2_HW_SURF)

CFAST (TCA_L2_HW_INTER)

CFAST (TCA_L2_HW_CENTRE)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

50

100

150

200

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

PRISME DOOR Test 1, Room 2 Target Temp.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

50

100

150

200

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

PRISME DOOR Test 1, Room 2 Target Temp.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

50

100

150

200

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

PRISME DOOR Test 1, Room 2 Target Temp.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

50

100

150

200

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

PRISME DOOR Test 1, Room 2 Target Temp.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

50

100

150

200

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

PRISME DOOR Test 1, Room 2 Target Temp.

257
 
Thermocouples were positioned at various points on the walls in the PRISME Door experiments. Each room contained a vertical array labelled, for example, TP L1 NE265. The TP indicates a surface temperature measurement, L1 indicates compartment 1, which is where the fire 

was located, NE indicates northeast corner of the room, and 265 indicates the number of centimeters above the floor. In addition, each room contained four measurement points centered on each 

wall at a height of approximately 260 cm. These points are labelled, for example, TP L2 SC265, 

compartment 2, center of south wall, 265 cm high. 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

PRISME DOOR Test 1, Room 1 Wall Temps.

Exp (TP_L1_NE355)

Exp (TP_L1_NE265)

Exp (TP_L1_NE155)

Exp (TP_L1_NE040)

CFAST (TP_L1_NE355)

CFAST (TP_L1_NE265)

CFAST (TP_L1_NE155)

CFAST (TP_L1_NE040)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

PRISME DOOR Test 2, Room 1 Wall Temps.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

PRISME DOOR Test 3, Room 1 Wall Temps.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

PRISME DOOR Test 4, Room 1 Wall Temps.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

PRISME DOOR Test 5, Room 1 Wall Temps.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

PRISME DOOR Test 6, Room 1 Wall Temps.

258
 
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

PRISME DOOR Test 1, Room 1 Wall Temps.

Exp (TP_L1_WC260)

Exp (TP_L1_NC265)

Exp (TP_L1_EC255)

Exp (TP_L1_SC265)

CFAST (TP_L1_WC260)

CFAST (TP_L1_NC265)

CFAST (TP_L1_EC255)

CFAST (TP_L1_SC265)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

PRISME DOOR Test 2, Room 1 Wall Temps.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

PRISME DOOR Test 3, Room 1 Wall Temps.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

PRISME DOOR Test 4, Room 1 Wall Temps.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

PRISME DOOR Test 5, Room 1 Wall Temps.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

PRISME DOOR Test 6, Room 1 Wall Temps.

259
 
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

20

40

60

80

100

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

PRISME DOOR Test 1, Room 2 Wall Temps.

Exp (TP_L2_NE355)

Exp (TP_L2_NE260)

Exp (TP_L2_NE155)

Exp (TP_L2_NE030)

CFAST (TP_L2_NE355)

CFAST (TP_L2_NE260)

CFAST (TP_L2_NE155)

CFAST (TP_L2_NE030)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

20

40

60

80

100

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

PRISME DOOR Test 2, Room 2 Wall Temps.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

20

40

60

80

100

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

PRISME DOOR Test 3, Room 2 Wall Temps.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

20

40

60

80

100

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

PRISME DOOR Test 4, Room 2 Wall Temps.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

20

40

60

80

100

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

PRISME DOOR Test 5, Room 2 Wall Temps.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

20

40

60

80

100

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

PRISME DOOR Test 6, Room 2 Wall Temps.

260
 
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

20

40

60

80

100

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

PRISME DOOR Test 1, Room 2 Wall Temps.

Exp (TP_L2_WC260)

Exp (TP_L2_NC265)

Exp (TP_L2_EC260)

Exp (TP_L2_SC260)

CFAST (TP_L2_WC260)

CFAST (TP_L2_NC265)

CFAST (TP_L2_EC260)

CFAST (TP_L2_SC260)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

20

40

60

80

100

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

PRISME DOOR Test 2, Room 2 Wall Temps.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

20

40

60

80

100

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

PRISME DOOR Test 3, Room 2 Wall Temps.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

20

40

60

80

100

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

PRISME DOOR Test 4, Room 2 Wall Temps.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

20

40

60

80

100

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

PRISME DOOR Test 5, Room 2 Wall Temps.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

20

40

60

80

100

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

PRISME DOOR Test 6, Room 2 Wall Temps.

261
 
Total and radiative heat flux gauges were positioned at various points on the walls. Each room 

contained a vertical array labelled, for example, FLT L1 NC265. The FLT indicates a surface total 

heat flux measurement, L1 indicates compartment 1, which is where the fire was located, NC indicates north wall center, and 265 indicates the number of centimeters above the floor. In addition, 

each room contained four measurement points centered on each wall at a height of approximately 

260 cm. These points are labelled, for example, FLT L2 SC265, compartment 2, center of south 

wall, 265 cm high. 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

5

10

15

20

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

PRISME DOOR Test 1, Room 1 Total Heat Flux

Exp (FLT_L1_NE355)

Exp (FLT_L1_NE265)

Exp (FLT_L1_NE155)

Exp (FLT_L1_NE040)

CFAST (FLT_L1_NE355)

CFAST (FLT_L1_NE265)

CFAST (FLT_L1_NE155)

CFAST (FLT_L1_NE040)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

5

10

15

20

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

PRISME DOOR Test 2, Room 1 Total Heat Flux

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

5

10

15

20

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

PRISME DOOR Test 3, Room 1 Total Heat Flux

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

5

10

15

20

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

PRISME DOOR Test 4, Room 1 Total Heat Flux

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

5

10

15

20

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

PRISME DOOR Test 5, Room 1 Total Heat Flux

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

5

10

15

20

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

PRISME DOOR Test 6, Room 1 Total Heat Flux

262
 
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

5

10

15

20

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

PRISME DOOR Test 1, Room 1 Radiative Heat Flux

Exp (FLR_L1_NE355)

Exp (FLR_L1_NE265)

Exp (FLR_L1_NE155)

Exp (FLR_L1_NE040)

CFAST (FLR_L1_NE355)

CFAST (FLR_L1_NE265)

CFAST (FLR_L1_NE155)

CFAST (FLR_L1_NE040)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

5

10

15

20

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

PRISME DOOR Test 2, Room 1 Radiative Heat Flux

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

5

10

15

20

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

PRISME DOOR Test 3, Room 1 Radiative Heat Flux

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

5

10

15

20

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

PRISME DOOR Test 4, Room 1 Radiative Heat Flux

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

5

10

15

20

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

PRISME DOOR Test 5, Room 1 Radiative Heat Flux

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

5

10

15

20

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

PRISME DOOR Test 6, Room 1 Radiative Heat Flux

263
 
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

5

10

15

20

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

PRISME DOOR Test 1, Room 1 Total Heat Flux

Exp (FLT_L1_WC265)

Exp (FLT_L1_NC265)

Exp (FLT_L1_EC265)

Exp (FLT_L1_SC265)

CFAST (FLT_L1_WC265)

CFAST (FLT_L1_NC265)

CFAST (FLT_L1_EC265)

CFAST (FLT_L1_SC265)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

5

10

15

20

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

PRISME DOOR Test 2, Room 1 Total Heat Flux

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

5

10

15

20

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

PRISME DOOR Test 3, Room 1 Total Heat Flux

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

5

10

15

20

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

PRISME DOOR Test 4, Room 1 Total Heat Flux

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

5

10

15

20

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

PRISME DOOR Test 5, Room 1 Total Heat Flux

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

5

10

15

20

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

PRISME DOOR Test 6, Room 1 Total Heat Flux

264
 
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

PRISME DOOR Test 1, Room 2 Total Heat Flux

Exp (FLT_L2_NE355)

Exp (FLT_L2_NE260)

Exp (FLT_L2_NE155)

Exp (FLT_L2_NE030)

CFAST (FLT_L2_NE355)

CFAST (FLT_L2_NE260)

CFAST (FLT_L2_NE155)

CFAST (FLT_L2_NE030)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

PRISME DOOR Test 2, Room 2 Total Heat Flux

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

PRISME DOOR Test 3, Room 2 Total Heat Flux

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

PRISME DOOR Test 4, Room 2 Total Heat Flux

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

PRISME DOOR Test 5, Room 2 Total Heat Flux

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

PRISME DOOR Test 6, Room 2 Total Heat Flux

265
 
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

PRISME DOOR Test 1, Room 2 Radiative Heat Flux

Exp (FLR_L2_NE355)

Exp (FLR_L2_NE260)

Exp (FLR_L2_NE155)

Exp (FLR_L2_NE030)

CFAST (FLR_L2_NE355)

CFAST (FLR_L2_NE260)

CFAST (FLR_L2_NE155)

CFAST (FLR_L2_NE030)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

PRISME DOOR Test 2, Room 2 Radiative Heat Flux

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

PRISME DOOR Test 3, Room 2 Radiative Heat Flux

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

PRISME DOOR Test 4, Room 2 Radiative Heat Flux

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

PRISME DOOR Test 5, Room 2 Radiative Heat Flux

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

PRISME DOOR Test 6, Room 2 Radiative Heat Flux

266
 
C.12 SP Adiabatic Surface Temperature Experiments 

Three experiments were conducted in a standard compartment, 3.6 m long by 2.4 m wide by 

2.4 m high, with a 0.8 m wide by 2.0 m high door centered on the narrow wall. A single beam was 

suspended 20 cm below the ceiling lengthwise along the centerline of the compartment. There were 

three measurement stations along the beam at distances of 0.9 m (Station A), 1.8 m (Station B), 

and 2.7 m (Station C) from the far wall where the fire was either positioned in the corner (Tests 1 

and 2), or the center (Test 3). The gas temperatures reported here were measured 10 cm away from 

all four sides of the beam at Station A, and 10 cm away from the two lateral sides at Stations B and 

C. In the figure legends, the measurement station is denoted A, B, or C, and the position is denoted 

1, 2, 3, or 4. Position 1 is 10 cm above the beam. Position 2 is 10 cm from the side of the beam 

facing away from the fire, Position 3 is 10 cm below the beam, and Position 4 is 10 cm away from 

the side of the beam facing the fire. 

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

0

200

400

600

800

1000

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Ceiling Jet, SP Test 1 Station A

Exp (C41,QT1)

Exp (C42,QT2)

CFAST (SENSGAS_1)

CFAST (SENSGAS_2)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

0

200

400

600

800

1000

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Ceiling Jet, SP Test 1 Station A

Exp (C43,QT3)

Exp (C44,QT4)

CFAST (SENSGAS_3)

CFAST (SENSGAS_4)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

0

200

400

600

800

1000

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Ceiling Jet, SP Test 1 Station B

Exp (C51,TC6)

Exp (C52,TC8)

CFAST (SENSGAS_5)

CFAST (SENSGAS_6)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

0

200

400

600

800

1000

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Ceiling Jet, SP Test 1 Station C

Exp (C53,TC10)

Exp (C54,TC12)

CFAST (SENSGAS_7)

CFAST (SENSGAS_8)

267
 
0 10 20 30 40 50 60

0

200

400

600

800

1000

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Ceiling Jet, SP Test 2 Station A

Exp (C41,QT1)

Exp (C42,QT2)

CFAST (SENSGAS_1)

CFAST (SENSGAS_2)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

0

200

400

600

800

1000

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Ceiling Jet, SP Test 2 Station A

Exp (C43,QT3)

Exp (C44,QT4)

CFAST (SENSGAS_3)

CFAST (SENSGAS_4)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

0

200

400

600

800

1000

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Ceiling Jet, SP Test 2 Station B

Exp (C51,TC6)

Exp (C52,TC8)

CFAST (SENSGAS_5)

CFAST (SENSGAS_6)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

0

200

400

600

800

1000

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Ceiling Jet, SP Test 2 Station C

Exp (C53,TC10)

Exp (C54,TC12)

CFAST (SENSGAS_7)

CFAST (SENSGAS_8)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

0

200

400

600

800

1000

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Ceiling Jet, SP Test 3 Station A

Exp (C41,QT1)

Exp (C42,QT2)

CFAST (SENSGAS_1)

CFAST (SENSGAS_2)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

0

200

400

600

800

1000

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Ceiling Jet, SP Test 3 Station A

Exp (C43,QT3)

Exp (C44,QT4)

CFAST (SENSGAS_3)

CFAST (SENSGAS_4)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

0

200

400

600

800

1000

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Ceiling Jet, SP Test 3 Station B

Exp (C51,TC6)

Exp (C52,TC8)

CFAST (SENSGAS_5)

CFAST (SENSGAS_6)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

0

200

400

600

800

1000

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Ceiling Jet, SP Test 3 Station C

Exp (C53,TC10)

Exp (C54,TC12)

CFAST (SENSGAS_7)

CFAST (SENSGAS_8)

268
 
Three experiments were conducted at SP, Sweden, in 2011, in which a 6 m long, 20 cm diameter 

vertical column was positioned in the middle of 1.1 m and 1.9 m diesel fuel and 1.1 m heptane pool 

fires [79]. Gas, plate, and steel surface temperature measurements were made at heights of 1 m, 

2 m, 3 m, 4 m, and 5 m above the pool surface. Gas temperatures were measured with 0.25 mm and 

0.50 mm bead thermocouples. The results are very similar and only the 0.25 mm values are used. 

In the experiments, the fire was reported to lean. The lean was significant for the 1.9 m diesel fuel 

fire. In that case, only data from 1 m and 2 m above the pool are used. The average temperature 

between 10 min and 15 min is the basic of comparison. 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Plume Temperature, 1.1 m Diesel Fire, 1 m 

Exp (gas (0.25) 1m pos1)

CFAST (TARGGAST1)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

200

400

600

800

1000

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Plume Temperature, 1.1 m Diesel Fire, 2 m 

Exp (gas (0.25) 2m pos1)

CFAST (TARGGAST2)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

200

400

600

800

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Plume Temperature, 1.1 m Diesel Fire, 3 m 

Exp (gas (0.25) 3m pos1)

CFAST (TARGGAST3)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Plume Temperature, 1.1 m Diesel Fire, 4 m 

Exp (gas (0.25) 4m pos1)

CFAST (TARGGAST4)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Plume Temperature, 1.1 m Diesel Fire, 5 m 

Exp (gas (0.25) 5m pos1)

CFAST (TARGGAST5)

269
 
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Plume Temperature, 1.9 m Diesel Fire, 1 m 

Exp (gas (0.25) 1m pos1)

CFAST (TARGGAST1)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Plume Temperature, 1.9 m Diesel Fire, 2 m 

Exp (gas (0.25) 2m pos1)

CFAST (TARGGAST2)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Plume Temperature, 1.1 m Heptane Fire, 1 m 

Exp (gas (0.25) 1m pos1)

CFAST (TARGGAST1)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

200

400

600

800

1000

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Plume Temperature, 1.1 m Heptane Fire, 2 m 

Exp (gas (0.25) 2m pos1)

CFAST (TARGGAST2)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

200

400

600

800

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Plume Temperature, 1.1 m Heptane Fire, 3 m 

Exp (gas (0.25) 3m pos1)

CFAST (TARGGAST3)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Plume Temperature, 1.1 m Heptane Fire, 4 m 

Exp (gas (0.25) 4m pos1)

CFAST (TARGGAST4)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Plume Temperature, 1.1 m Heptane Fire, 5 m 

Exp (gas (0.25) 5m pos1)

CFAST (TARGGAST5)

270
 
C.13 Steckler Compartment Experiments 

Steckler et al. [80] mapped the doorway/window flows in 55 compartment fire experiments. The 

test matrix is presented in Table 4.5. Shown on the following pages are the temperature profiles 

inside the compartment compared with model predictions. To quantify the difference between 

prediction and measurement, the maximum temperatures were compared. 

271
 
0 50 100 150 200 250 300

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

Temperature (°C)

Height (m)

Temperature Profile, Steckler Test 10

Exp (T_in)

CFAST (TC_Room)

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

Temperature (°C)

Height (m)

Temperature Profile, Steckler Test 11

Exp (T_in)

CFAST (TC_Room)

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

Temperature (°C)

Height (m)

Temperature Profile, Steckler Test 12

Exp (T_in)

CFAST (TC_Room)

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

Temperature (°C)

Height (m)

Temperature Profile, Steckler Test 612

Exp (T_in)

CFAST (TC_Room)

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

Temperature (°C)

Height (m)

Temperature Profile, Steckler Test 13

Exp (T_in)

CFAST (TC_Room)

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

Temperature (°C)

Height (m)

Temperature Profile, Steckler Test 14

Exp (T_in)

CFAST (TC_Room)

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

Temperature (°C)

Height (m)

Temperature Profile, Steckler Test 18

Exp (T_in)

CFAST (TC_Room)

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

Temperature (°C)

Height (m)

Temperature Profile, Steckler Test 710

Exp (T_in)

CFAST (TC_Room)

272
 
0 50 100 150 200 250 300

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

Temperature (°C)

Height (m)

Temperature Profile, Steckler Test 810

Exp (T_in)

CFAST (TC_Room)

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

Temperature (°C)

Height (m)

Temperature Profile, Steckler Test 16

Exp (T_in)

CFAST (TC_Room)

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

Temperature (°C)

Height (m)

Temperature Profile, Steckler Test 17

Exp (T_in)

CFAST (TC_Room)

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

Temperature (°C)

Height (m)

Temperature Profile, Steckler Test 22

Exp (T_in)

CFAST (TC_Room)

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

Temperature (°C)

Height (m)

Temperature Profile, Steckler Test 23

Exp (T_in)

CFAST (TC_Room)

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

Temperature (°C)

Height (m)

Temperature Profile, Steckler Test 30

Exp (T_in)

CFAST (TC_Room)

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

Temperature (°C)

Height (m)

Temperature Profile, Steckler Test 41

Exp (T_in)

CFAST (TC_Room)

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

Temperature (°C)

Height (m)

Temperature Profile, Steckler Test 19

Exp (T_in)

CFAST (TC_Room)

273
 
0 50 100 150 200 250 300

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

Temperature (°C)

Height (m)

Temperature Profile, Steckler Test 20

Exp (T_in)

CFAST (TC_Room)

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

Temperature (°C)

Height (m)

Temperature Profile, Steckler Test 21

Exp (T_in)

CFAST (TC_Room)

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

Temperature (°C)

Height (m)

Temperature Profile, Steckler Test 114

Exp (T_in)

CFAST (TC_Room)

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

Temperature (°C)

Height (m)

Temperature Profile, Steckler Test 144

Exp (T_in)

CFAST (TC_Room)

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

Temperature (°C)

Height (m)

Temperature Profile, Steckler Test 212

Exp (T_in)

CFAST (TC_Room)

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

Temperature (°C)

Height (m)

Temperature Profile, Steckler Test 242

Exp (T_in)

CFAST (TC_Room)

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

Temperature (°C)

Height (m)

Temperature Profile, Steckler Test 410

Exp (T_in)

CFAST (TC_Room)

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

Temperature (°C)

Height (m)

Temperature Profile, Steckler Test 210

Exp (T_in)

CFAST (TC_Room)

274
 
0 50 100 150 200 250 300

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

Temperature (°C)

Height (m)

Temperature Profile, Steckler Test 310

Exp (T_in)

CFAST (TC_Room)

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

Temperature (°C)

Height (m)

Temperature Profile, Steckler Test 240

Exp (T_in)

CFAST (TC_Room)

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

Temperature (°C)

Height (m)

Temperature Profile, Steckler Test 116

Exp (T_in)

CFAST (TC_Room)

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

Temperature (°C)

Height (m)

Temperature Profile, Steckler Test 122

Exp (T_in)

CFAST (TC_Room)

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

Temperature (°C)

Height (m)

Temperature Profile, Steckler Test 224

Exp (T_in)

CFAST (TC_Room)

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

Temperature (°C)

Height (m)

Temperature Profile, Steckler Test 324

Exp (T_in)

CFAST (TC_Room)

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

Temperature (°C)

Height (m)

Temperature Profile, Steckler Test 220

Exp (T_in)

CFAST (TC_Room)

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

Temperature (°C)

Height (m)

Temperature Profile, Steckler Test 221

Exp (T_in)

CFAST (TC_Room)

275
 
0 50 100 150 200 250 300

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

Temperature (°C)

Height (m)

Temperature Profile, Steckler Test 514

Exp (T_in)

CFAST (TC_Room)

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

Temperature (°C)

Height (m)

Temperature Profile, Steckler Test 544

Exp (T_in)

CFAST (TC_Room)

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

Temperature (°C)

Height (m)

Temperature Profile, Steckler Test 512

Exp (T_in)

CFAST (TC_Room)

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

Temperature (°C)

Height (m)

Temperature Profile, Steckler Test 542

Exp (T_in)

CFAST (TC_Room)

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

Temperature (°C)

Height (m)

Temperature Profile, Steckler Test 610

Exp (T_in)

CFAST (TC_Room)

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

Temperature (°C)

Height (m)

Temperature Profile, Steckler Test 510

Exp (T_in)

CFAST (TC_Room)

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

Temperature (°C)

Height (m)

Temperature Profile, Steckler Test 540

Exp (T_in)

CFAST (TC_Room)

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

Temperature (°C)

Height (m)

Temperature Profile, Steckler Test 517

Exp (T_in)

CFAST (TC_Room)

276
 
0 50 100 150 200 250 300

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

Temperature (°C)

Height (m)

Temperature Profile, Steckler Test 622

Exp (T_in)

CFAST (TC_Room)

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

Temperature (°C)

Height (m)

Temperature Profile, Steckler Test 522

Exp (T_in)

CFAST (TC_Room)

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

Temperature (°C)

Height (m)

Temperature Profile, Steckler Test 524

Exp (T_in)

CFAST (TC_Room)

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

Temperature (°C)

Height (m)

Temperature Profile, Steckler Test 541

Exp (T_in)

CFAST (TC_Room)

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

Temperature (°C)

Height (m)

Temperature Profile, Steckler Test 520

Exp (T_in)

CFAST (TC_Room)

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

Temperature (°C)

Height (m)

Temperature Profile, Steckler Test 521

Exp (T_in)

CFAST (TC_Room)

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

Temperature (°C)

Height (m)

Temperature Profile, Steckler Test 513

Exp (T_in)

CFAST (TC_Room)

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

Temperature (°C)

Height (m)

Temperature Profile, Steckler Test 160

Exp (T_in)

CFAST (TC_Room)

277
 
0 50 100 150 200 250 300

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

Temperature (°C)

Height (m)

Temperature Profile, Steckler Test 163

Exp (T_in)

CFAST (TC_Room)

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

Temperature (°C)

Height (m)

Temperature Profile, Steckler Test 164

Exp (T_in)

CFAST (TC_Room)

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

Temperature (°C)

Height (m)

Temperature Profile, Steckler Test 165

Exp (T_in)

CFAST (TC_Room)

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

Temperature (°C)

Height (m)

Temperature Profile, Steckler Test 162

Exp (T_in)

CFAST (TC_Room)

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

Temperature (°C)

Height (m)

Temperature Profile, Steckler Test 167

Exp (T_in)

CFAST (TC_Room)

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

Temperature (°C)

Height (m)

Temperature Profile, Steckler Test 161

Exp (T_in)

CFAST (TC_Room)

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

Temperature (°C)

Height (m)

Temperature Profile, Steckler Test 166

Exp (T_in)

CFAST (TC_Room)

278
 
C.14 UL/NFPRF Series I Experiments 

The primary purpose of the UL/NFPRF experiments was to measure sprinkler activation times for 

a series of heptane spray burner fires. To determine activation times, thermocouples were affixed 

to each sprinkler, and a sudden drop in temperature indicated activation. These same thermocouple 

temperatures can be compared to ceiling jet temperature predictions. Referring to Fig. 4.16, the 

chosen measurement locations are 56, 68, 86, and 98, providing comparisons as close to, and as 

far away from, the fire as possible. 

0 2 4 6 8 10

0

50

100

150

200

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

UL/NFPRF, Series I, Test 1

0 2 4 6 8 10

0

50

100

150

200

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

UL/NFPRF, Series I, Test 2

0 2 4 6 8 10

0

50

100

150

200

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

UL/NFPRF, Series I, Test 3

0 2 4 6 8 10

0

50

100

150

200

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

UL/NFPRF, Series I, Test 4

0 2 4 6 8 10

0

50

100

150

200

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

UL/NFPRF, Series I, Test 5

0 2 4 6 8 10

0

50

100

150

200

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

UL/NFPRF, Series I, Test 6

279
 
0 2 4 6 8 10

0

50

100

150

200

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

UL/NFPRF, Series I, Test 7

0 2 4 6 8 10

0

50

100

150

200

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

UL/NFPRF, Series I, Test 8

0 2 4 6 8 10

0

50

100

150

200

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

UL/NFPRF, Series I, Test 9

0 2 4 6 8 10

0

50

100

150

200

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

UL/NFPRF, Series I, Test 10

0 2 4 6 8 10

0

50

100

150

200

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

UL/NFPRF, Series I, Test 11

0 2 4 6 8 10

0

50

100

150

200

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

UL/NFPRF, Series I, Test 12

0 2 4 6 8 10

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

UL/NFPRF, Series I, Test 13

0 2 4 6 8 10

0

50

100

150

200

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

UL/NFPRF, Series I, Test 14

280
 
0 2 4 6 8 10

0

50

100

150

200

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

UL/NFPRF, Series I, Test 15

0 2 4 6 8 10

0

50

100

150

200

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

UL/NFPRF, Series I, Test 16

0 2 4 6 8 10

0

50

100

150

200

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

UL/NFPRF, Series I, Test 17

0 2 4 6 8 10

0

50

100

150

200

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

UL/NFPRF, Series I, Test 18

0 2 4 6 8 10

0

50

100

150

200

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

UL/NFPRF, Series I, Test 19

0 2 4 6 8 10

0

50

100

150

200

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

UL/NFPRF, Series I, Test 20

0 2 4 6 8 10

0

50

100

150

200

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

UL/NFPRF, Series I, Test 21

0 2 4 6 8 10

0

50

100

150

200

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

UL/NFPRF, Series I, Test 22

281
 
C.15 UL/NIST Vent Experiments 

The HGL temperature and height for the four experiments was calculated from two vertical arrays 

of eight thermocouples each. The arrays were centered on the long central axis of the compartment 

and 90 cm from each short size wall. The 2.4 m by 1.2 m double vent was 90 cm from each array. 

The uppermost TC was 2.5 cm below the ceiling. The second TC was 30 cm (1 ft) below the 

ceiling, and the rest were spaced evenly by 1 ft. 

The ceiling jet temperatures were measured at two locations, 90 cm from the short ends of the 

2.4 m by 1.2 m double vent. 

282
 
0 20 40 60 80

0

200

400

600

800

1000

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

HGL Temperature, UL/NIST Vents Test 1

Exp (T_upper)

CFAST (ULT_1)

0 20 40 60 80

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

Time (min)

Height (m)

HGL Height, UL/NIST Vents Test 1

Exp (Height)

CFAST (HGT_1)

0 20 40 60 80

0

200

400

600

800

1000

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

HGL Temperature, UL/NIST Vents Test 2

Exp (T_upper)

CFAST (ULT_1)

0 20 40 60 80

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

Time (min)

Height (m)

HGL Height, UL/NIST Vents Test 2

Exp (Height)

CFAST (HGT_1)

0 20 40 60 80

0

200

400

600

800

1000

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

HGL Temperature, UL/NIST Vents Test 3

Exp (T_upper)

CFAST (ULT_1)

0 20 40 60 80

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

Time (min)

Height (m)

HGL Height, UL/NIST Vents Test 3

Exp (Height)

CFAST (HGT_1)

0 20 40 60 80

0

200

400

600

800

1000

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

HGL Temperature, UL/NIST Vents Test 4

Exp (T_upper)

CFAST (ULT_1)

0 20 40 60 80

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

Time (min)

Height (m)

HGL Height, UL/NIST Vents Test 4

Exp (Height)

CFAST (HGT_1)

283
 
0 20 40 60 80

0

200

400

600

800

1000

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Ceiling Jet, UL/NIST Vents Test 1, Tree 1

Exp (T1−2)

CFAST (SENSGAST_1)

0 20 40 60 80

0

200

400

600

800

1000

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Ceiling Jet, UL/NIST Vents Test 1, Tree 2

Exp (T2−2)

CFAST (SENSGAST_2)

0 20 40 60 80

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Ceiling Jet, UL/NIST Vents Test 2, Tree 1

Exp (T1−2)

CFAST (SENSGAST_1)

0 20 40 60 80

0

200

400

600

800

1000

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Ceiling Jet, UL/NIST Vents Test 2, Tree 2

Exp (T2−2)

CFAST (SENSGAST_2)

0 20 40 60 80

0

200

400

600

800

1000

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Ceiling Jet, UL/NIST Vents Test 3, Tree 1

Exp (T1−2)

CFAST (SENSGAST_1)

0 20 40 60 80

0

200

400

600

800

1000

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Ceiling Jet, UL/NIST Vents Test 3, Tree 2

Exp (T2−2)

CFAST (SENSGAST_2)

0 20 40 60 80

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Ceiling Jet, UL/NIST Vents Test 4, Tree 1

Exp (T1−2)

CFAST (SENSGAST_1)

0 20 40 60 80

0

200

400

600

800

1000

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Ceiling Jet, UL/NIST Vents Test 4, Tree 2

Exp (T2−2)

CFAST (SENSGAST_2)

284
 
C.16 USN High Bay Hangar Experiments 

A large number of plume temperature measurements are available from the US Navy experiments 

conducted at Keflavik, Iceland, and Barber’s Point, Hawaii. The hangars were very large in size 

(22 m high in Iceland and 15 m high in Hawaii) and the heat release rates varied from 100 kW to 

33 MW. All experiments made use of a fuel pan filled with either JP-5 or JP-8 jet fuel, positioned 

in the center of the hangar. 

0 5 10 15

0

5

10

15

20

25

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Temperature, USN Hangars, Iceland, Test 1

Exp (C)

CFAST (Target 10)

0 5 10 15

0

5

10

15

20

25

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Temperature, USN Hangars, Iceland, Test 2

Exp (C)

CFAST (Target 10)

0 5 10 15

0

10

20

30

40

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Temperature, USN Hangars, Iceland, Test 3

Exp (C)

CFAST (Target 10)

0 5 10 15

0

10

20

30

40

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Temperature, USN Hangars, Iceland, Test 4

Exp (C)

CFAST (Target 10)

0 5 10 15

0

10

20

30

40

50

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Temperature, USN Hangars, Iceland, Test 5

Exp (C)

CFAST (Target 10)

0 5 10 15

0

10

20

30

40

50

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Temperature, USN Hangars, Iceland, Test 6

Exp (C)

CFAST (Target 10)

285
 
0 5 10 15

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Temperature, USN Hangars, Iceland, Test 7

Exp (C)

CFAST (Target 10)

0 5 10 15

0

5

10

15

20

25

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Temperature, USN Hangars, Iceland, Test 9

Exp (C)

CFAST (Target 10)

0 5 10 15

0

10

20

30

40

50

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Temperature, USN Hangars, Iceland, Test 10

Exp (C)

CFAST (Target 10)

0 5 10 15

0

10

20

30

40

50

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Temperature, USN Hangars, Iceland, Test 11

Exp (C)

CFAST (Target 10)

0 5 10 15

0

10

20

30

40

50

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Temperature, USN Hangars, Iceland, Test 12

Exp (C)

CFAST (Target 10)

0 5 10 15

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Temperature, USN Hangars, Iceland, Test 13

Exp (C)

CFAST (Target 10)

286
 
0 5 10 15

0

50

100

150

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Temperature, USN Hangars, Iceland, Test 14

Exp (C)

CFAST (Target 10)

0 5 10 15

0

50

100

150

200

250

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Temperature, USN Hangars, Iceland, Test 15

Exp (C)

CFAST (Target 10)

0 5 10 15

0

50

100

150

200

250

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Temperature, USN Hangars, Iceland, Test 17

Exp (C)

CFAST (Target 10)

0 5 10 15

0

20

40

60

80

100

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Temperature, USN Hangars, Iceland, Test 18

Exp (C)

CFAST (Target 10)

0 5 10 15

0

50

100

150

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Temperature, USN Hangars, Iceland, Test 19

Exp (C)

CFAST (Target 10)

0 5 10 15

0

50

100

150

200

250

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Temperature, USN Hangars, Iceland, Test 20

Exp (C)

CFAST (Target 10)

287
 
0 5 10 15

0

10

20

30

40

50

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Temperature, USN Hangars, Hawaii, Test 1

Exp (C1)

CFAST (Target 1)

0 5 10 15

0

20

40

60

80

100

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Temperature, USN Hangars, Hawaii, Test 2

Exp (C1)

CFAST (Target 1)

0 5 10 15

0

20

40

60

80

100

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Temperature, USN Hangars, Hawaii, Test 3

Exp (C1)

CFAST (Target 1)

0 5 10 15

0

50

100

150

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Temperature, USN Hangars, Hawaii, Test 4

Exp (C1)

CFAST (Target 1)

0 5 10 15

0

50

100

150

200

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Temperature, USN Hangars, Hawaii, Test 5

Exp (C1)

CFAST (Target 1)

0 5 10 15

0

50

100

150

200

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Temperature, USN Hangars, Hawaii, Test 6

Exp (C1)

CFAST (Target 1)

0 5 10 15

0

50

100

150

200

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Temperature, USN Hangars, Hawaii, Test 7

Exp (C1)

CFAST (Target 1)

0 5 10 15

0

10

20

30

40

50

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Temperature, USN Hangars, Hawaii, Test 11

Exp (C1)

CFAST (Target 1)

288
 
C.17 Vettori Flat Ceiling Experiments 

For these experiments, the measured and predicted thermocouple temperature at the location of 

the first two activating sprinklers are compared. The experiments consisted of either Smooth or 

Obstructed ceilings; Slow, Medium or Fast fires; and a burner in the Open, at the Wall, or in the 

Corner. The experiments included three replicates of each of the smooth ceiling configurations and 

two replicates of each of the obstructed ceiling configurations. 

289
 
0 20 40 60 80 100

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Time (s)

Temperature (

°C)

Smooth/Open/Fast, Test 1

Exp (TC_1_02)

Exp (TC_2_02)

CFAST (Sensor 1)

CFAST (Sensor 2)

0 20 40 60 80 100

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Time (s)

Temperature (

°C)

Smooth/Open/Fast, Test 2

Exp (TC_1_02)

Exp (TC_2_02)

CFAST (Sensor 1)

CFAST (Sensor 2)

0 20 40 60 80 100

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Time (s)

Temperature (

°C)

Smooth/Open/Fast, Test 3

Exp (TC_1_02)

Exp (TC_2_02)

CFAST (Sensor 1)

CFAST (Sensor 2)

0 20 40 60 80

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Time (s)

Temperature (

°C)

Obstructed/Open/Fast, Test 4

Exp (TC_1_02)

Exp (TC_2_02)

CFAST (Sensor 1)

CFAST (Sensor 2)

0 20 40 60 80

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Time (s)

Temperature (

°C)

Obstructed/Open/Fast, Test 5

Exp (TC_1_02)

Exp (TC_2_02)

CFAST (Sensor 1)

CFAST (Sensor 2)

0 20 40 60 80

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Time (s)

Temperature (

°C)

Smooth/Open/Medium, Test 6

Exp (TC_1_02)

Exp (TC_2_02)

CFAST (Sensor 1)

CFAST (Sensor 2)

0 20 40 60 80

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Time (s)

Temperature (

°C)

Smooth/Open/Medium, Test 7

Exp (TC_1_02)

Exp (TC_2_02)

CFAST (Sensor 1)

CFAST (Sensor 2)

0 20 40 60 80

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Time (s)

Temperature (

°C)

Smooth/Open/Medium, Test 8

Exp (TC_1_02)

Exp (TC_2_02)

CFAST (Sensor 1)

CFAST (Sensor 2)

290
 
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Time (s)

Temperature (

°C)

Obstructed/Open/Medium, Test 9

Exp (TC_1_02)

Exp (TC_2_02)

CFAST (Sensor 1)

CFAST (Sensor 2)

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Time (s)

Temperature (

°C)

Obstructed/Open/Medium, Test 10

Exp (TC_1_02)

Exp (TC_2_02)

CFAST (Sensor 1)

CFAST (Sensor 2)

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Time (s)

Temperature (

°C)

Smooth/Open/Slow, Test 11

Exp (TC_1_02)

Exp (TC_2_02)

CFAST (Sensor 1)

CFAST (Sensor 2)

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Time (s)

Temperature (

°C)

Smooth/Open/Slow, Test 12

Exp (TC_1_02)

Exp (TC_2_02)

CFAST (Sensor 1)

CFAST (Sensor 2)

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Time (s)

Temperature (

°C)

Smooth/Open/Slow, Test 13

Exp (TC_1_02)

Exp (TC_2_02)

CFAST (Sensor 1)

CFAST (Sensor 2)

0 50 100 150 200

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Time (s)

Temperature (

°C)

Obstructed/Open/Slow, Test 14

Exp (TC_1_02)

Exp (TC_2_02)

CFAST (Sensor 1)

CFAST (Sensor 2)

0 50 100 150 200

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Time (s)

Temperature (

°C)

Obstructed/Open/Slow, Test 15

Exp (TC_1_02)

Exp (TC_2_02)

CFAST (Sensor 1)

CFAST (Sensor 2)

0 10 20 30 40 50

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Time (s)

Temperature (

°C)

Smooth/Wall/Fast, Test 16

Exp (TC_1_02)

Exp (TC_2_02)

CFAST (Sensor 1)

CFAST (Sensor 2)

291
 
0 10 20 30 40 50

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Time (s)

Temperature (

°C)

Smooth/Wall/Fast, Test 17

Exp (TC_1_02)

Exp (TC_2_02)

CFAST (Sensor 1)

CFAST (Sensor 2)

0 10 20 30 40 50

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Time (s)

Temperature (

°C)

Smooth/Wall/Fast, Test 18

Exp (TC_1_02)

Exp (TC_2_02)

CFAST (Sensor 1)

CFAST (Sensor 2)

0 20 40 60 80

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Time (s)

Temperature (

°C)

Obstructed/Wall/Fast, Test 19

Exp (TC_2_02)

Exp (TC_3_02)

CFAST (Sensor 1)

CFAST (Sensor 2)

0 20 40 60 80

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Time (s)

Temperature (

°C)

Obstructed/Wall/Fast, Test 20

Exp (TC_2_02)

Exp (TC_3_02)

CFAST (Sensor 1)

CFAST (Sensor 2)

0 20 40 60 80

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Time (s)

Temperature (

°C)

Smooth/Wall/Medium, Test 21

Exp (TC_1_02)

Exp (TC_2_02)

CFAST (Sensor 1)

CFAST (Sensor 2)

0 20 40 60 80

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Time (s)

Temperature (

°C)

Smooth/Wall/Medium, Test 22

Exp (TC_1_02)

Exp (TC_2_02)

CFAST (Sensor 1)

CFAST (Sensor 2)

0 20 40 60 80

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Time (s)

Temperature (

°C)

Smooth/Wall/Medium, Test 23

Exp (TC_1_02)

Exp (TC_2_02)

CFAST (Sensor 1)

CFAST (Sensor 2)

0 50 100 150

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Time (s)

Temperature (

°C)

Obstructed/Wall/Medium, Test 24

Exp (TC_1_02)

Exp (TC_2_02)

CFAST (Sensor 1)

CFAST (Sensor 2)

292
 
0 50 100 150

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Time (s)

Temperature (

°C)

Obstructed/Wall/Medium, Test 25

Exp (TC_1_02)

Exp (TC_2_02)

CFAST (Sensor 1)

CFAST (Sensor 2)

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Time (s)

Temperature (

°C)

Smooth/Wall/Slow, Test 26

Exp (TC_1_02)

Exp (TC_2_02)

CFAST (Sensor 1)

CFAST (Sensor 2)

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Time (s)

Temperature (

°C)

Smooth/Wall/Slow, Test 27

Exp (TC_1_02)

Exp (TC_2_02)

CFAST (Sensor 1)

CFAST (Sensor 2)

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Time (s)

Temperature (

°C)

Smooth/Wall/Slow, Test 28

Exp (TC_1_02)

Exp (TC_2_02)

CFAST (Sensor 1)

CFAST (Sensor 2)

0 50 100 150 200 250

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Time (s)

Temperature (

°C)

Obstructed/Wall/Slow, Test 29

Exp (TC_2_02)

Exp (TC_4_02)

CFAST (Sensor 1)

CFAST (Sensor 2)

0 50 100 150 200 250

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Time (s)

Temperature (

°C)

Obstructed/Wall/Slow, Test 30

Exp (TC_2_02)

Exp (TC_4_02)

CFAST (Sensor 1)

CFAST (Sensor 2)

0 10 20 30 40

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Time (s)

Temperature (

°C)

Smooth/Corner/Fast, Test 31 

Exp (TC_1_02)

Exp (TC_2_02)

CFAST (Sensor 1)

CFAST (Sensor 2)

0 10 20 30 40

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Time (s)

Temperature (

°C)

Smooth/Corner/Fast, Test 32

Exp (TC_1_02)

Exp (TC_2_02)

CFAST (Sensor 1)

CFAST (Sensor 2)

293
 
0 10 20 30 40

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Time (s)

Temperature (

°C)

Smooth/Corner/Fast, Test 33

Exp (TC_1_02)

Exp (TC_2_02)

CFAST (Sensor 1)

CFAST (Sensor 2)

0 20 40 60 80

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Time (s)

Temperature (

°C)

Obstructed/Corner/Fast, Test 34

Exp (TC_1_02)

Exp (TC_4_02)

CFAST (Sensor 1)

CFAST (Sensor 2)

0 20 40 60 80

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Time (s)

Temperature (

°C)

Obstructed/Corner/Fast, Test 35

Exp (TC_1_02)

Exp (TC_4_02)

CFAST (Sensor 1)

CFAST (Sensor 2)

0 10 20 30 40 50

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Time (s)

Temperature (

°C)

Smooth/Corner/Medium, Test 36

Exp (TC_1_02)

Exp (TC_2_02)

CFAST (Sensor 1)

CFAST (Sensor 2)

0 10 20 30 40 50

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Time (s)

Temperature (

°C)

Smooth/Corner/Medium, Test 37

Exp (TC_1_02)

Exp (TC_2_02)

CFAST (Sensor 1)

CFAST (Sensor 2)

0 10 20 30 40 50

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Time (s)

Temperature (

°C)

Smooth/Corner/Medium, Test 38

Exp (TC_1_02)

Exp (TC_2_02)

CFAST (Sensor 1)

CFAST (Sensor 2)

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Time (s)

Temperature (

°C)

Obstructed/Corner/Medium, Test 39

Exp (TC_3_02)

Exp (TC_4_02)

CFAST (Sensor 1)

CFAST (Sensor 2)

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Time (s)

Temperature (

°C)

Obstructed/Corner/Medium, Test 40

Exp (TC_3_02)

Exp (TC_4_02)

CFAST (Sensor 1)

CFAST (Sensor 2)

294
 
0 20 40 60 80 100

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Time (s)

Temperature (

°C)

Smooth/Corner/Slow, Test 41

Exp (TC_1_02)

Exp (TC_2_02)

CFAST (Sensor 1)

CFAST (Sensor 2)

0 20 40 60 80 100

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Time (s)

Temperature (

°C)

Smooth/Corner/Slow, Test 42

Exp (TC_1_02)

Exp (TC_2_02)

CFAST (Sensor 1)

CFAST (Sensor 2)

0 20 40 60 80 100

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Time (s)

Temperature (

°C)

Smooth/Corner/Slow, Test 43

Exp (TC_1_02)

Exp (TC_2_02)

CFAST (Sensor 1)

CFAST (Sensor 2)

0 50 100 150 200

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Time (s)

Temperature (

°C)

Obstructed/Corner/Slow, Test 44

Exp (TC_3_02)

Exp (TC_4_02)

CFAST (Sensor 1)

CFAST (Sensor 2)

0 50 100 150 200

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Time (s)

Temperature (

°C)

Obstructed/Corner/Slow, Test 45

Exp (TC_3_02)

Exp (TC_4_02)

CFAST (Sensor 1)

CFAST (Sensor 2)

295
 
C.18 VTT Large Hall Tests 

The experiments are described in reference [86]. The series consisted three unique fire scenarios 

with replications for a total of 8 experiments. The experiments were undertaken to study the 

movement of smoke in a large hall with a sloped ceiling. The tests were conducted inside the VTT 

Fire Test Hall, with dimensions of 19 m high by 27 m long by 14 m wide. Each test involved a 

single heptane pool fire, ranging from 2 MW to 4 MW. 

296
 
0 2 4 6 8 10

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

HGL Temperature, VTT Case 1

Exp (T_Upper)

CFAST (ULT_1)

0 2 4 6 8 10

0

5

10

15

Time (min)

Height (m)

HGL Height, VTT Case 1

Exp (Height)

CFAST (HGT_1)

0 2 4 6 8 10

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

HGL Temperature, VTT Case 1

Exp (T_Upper)

CFAST (ULT_1)

0 2 4 6 8 10

0

5

10

15

Time (min)

Height (m)

HGL Height, VTT Case 1

Exp (Height)

CFAST (HGT_1)

0 2 4 6 8 10

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

HGL Temperature, VTT Case 1

Exp (T_Upper)

CFAST (ULT_1)

0 2 4 6 8 10

0

5

10

15

Time (min)

Height (m)

HGL Height, VTT Case 1

Exp (Height)

CFAST (HGT_1)

297
 
0 2 4 6 8 10

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Plume Temperature, VTT Case 1

Exp (T G.1)

Exp (T G.2)

CFAST (Target 1)

CFAST (Target 2)

0 2 4 6 8 10

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Plume Temperature, VTT Case 2

Exp (T G.1)

Exp (T G.2)

CFAST (Target 1)

CFAST (Target 2)

0 2 4 6 8 10

0

100

200

300

400

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Plume Temperature, VTT Case 3

Exp (T G.1)

Exp (T G.2)

CFAST (Target 1)

CFAST (Target 2)

298
 
C.19 WTC Test Series 

The HGL temperature and height for the WTC experiments were calculated from two TC trees, 

one that was approximately 3 m to the west and one 2 m to the east of the fire pan (see Fig. 4.22). 

Each tree consisted of 15 thermocouples, the highest point being 5 cm below the ceiling. 

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

0

200

400

600

800

1000

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

HGL Temperature, WTC Test 1

Exp (T_Upper)

CFAST (ULT_1)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

0

1

2

3

4

Time (min)

Height (m)

HGL Height, WTC Test 1

Exp (Height)

CFAST (HGT_1)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

0

200

400

600

800

1000

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

HGL Temperature, WTC Test 2

Exp (T_Upper)

CFAST (ULT_1)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

0

1

2

3

4

Time (min)

Height (m)

HGL Height, WTC Test 2

Exp (Height)

CFAST (HGT_1)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

0

200

400

600

800

1000

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

HGL Temperature, WTC Test 3

Exp (T_Upper)

CFAST (ULT_1)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

0

1

2

3

4

Time (min)

Height (m)

HGL Height, WTC Test 3

Exp (Height)

CFAST (HGT_1)

299
 
0 20 40 60 80

0

200

400

600

800

1000

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

HGL Temperature, WTC Test 4

Exp (T_Upper)

CFAST (ULT_1)

0 20 40 60 80

0

1

2

3

4

Time (min)

Height (m)

HGL Height, WTC Test 4

Exp (Height)

CFAST (HGT_1)

0 20 40 60 80

0

200

400

600

800

1000

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

HGL Temperature, WTC Test 5

Exp (T_Upper)

CFAST (ULT_1)

0 20 40 60 80

0

1

2

3

4

Time (min)

Height (m)

HGL Height, WTC Test 5

Exp (Height)

CFAST (HGT_1)

0 20 40 60 80

0

200

400

600

800

1000

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

HGL Temperature, WTC Test 6

Exp (T_Upper)

CFAST (ULT_1)

0 20 40 60 80

0

1

2

3

4

Time (min)

Height (m)

HGL Height, WTC Test 6

Exp (Height)

CFAST (HGT_1)

300
 
The following pages contain comparisons of predicted and measured ceiling temperatures, 

both at the surface and beneath a layer of marinite board. Table C.1 below lists the coordinates of 

the measurement locations relative to the center of the fire pan. Names with “IN” appended are 

measurements made under the marinite board. 

Table C.1: Locations of ceiling surface temperature measurements relative to the fire pan in the 

WTC series. 

Name x (m) y (m) z (m) 

TCC 0.62 0.07 3.82 

TCN3 0.62 0.67 3.82 

TCS3 0.62 -0.53 3.82 

TCE7 2.18 0.07 3.82 

TCW7 -1.15 0.07 3.82 

TCCIN 0.62 0.07 3.83 

TCN3IN 0.62 0.67 3.83 

TCS3IN 0.62 -0.53 3.83 

TCE4IN 1.28 0.07 3.83 

TCW4IN 0.05 0.07 3.83 

301
 
0 10 20 30 40 50 60

0

200

400

600

800

1000

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Ceiling Temperature (North), WTC Test 1

Exp (TCC)

Exp (TCN1)

Exp (TCN2)

Exp (TCN3)

CFAST (Target 7)

CFAST (Target 8)

CFAST (Target 9)

CFAST (Target 10)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

0

200

400

600

800

1000

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Ceiling Temperature (North), WTC Test 2

Exp (TCC)

Exp (TCN1)

Exp (TCN2)

Exp (TCN3)

CFAST (Target 7)

CFAST (Target 8)

CFAST (Target 9)

CFAST (Target 10)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

0

200

400

600

800

1000

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Ceiling Temperature (North), WTC Test 3

Exp (TCC)

Exp (TCN1)

Exp (TCN2)

Exp (TCN3)

CFAST (Target 7)

CFAST (Target 8)

CFAST (Target 9)

CFAST (Target 10)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

0

200

400

600

800

1000

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Ceiling Temperature (North), WTC Test 4

Exp (TCC)

Exp (TCN1)

Exp (TCN2)

Exp (TCN3)

CFAST (Target 7)

CFAST (Target 8)

CFAST (Target 9)

CFAST (Target 10)

0 20 40 60 80

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Ceiling Temperature (North), WTC Test 5

Exp (TCC)

Exp (TCN1)

Exp (TCN2)

Exp (TCN3)

CFAST (Target 7)

CFAST (Target 8)

CFAST (Target 9)

CFAST (Target 10)

0 20 40 60 80

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Ceiling Temperature (North), WTC Test 6

Exp (TCC)

Exp (TCN1)

Exp (TCN2)

Exp (TCN3)

CFAST (Target 7)

CFAST (Target 8)

CFAST (Target 9)

CFAST (Target 10)

302
 
0 10 20 30 40 50 60

0

200

400

600

800

1000

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Ceiling Temperature (South), WTC Test 1

Exp (TCS1)

Exp (TCS2)

Exp (TCS3)

CFAST (Target 20)

CFAST (Target 21)

CFAST (Target 22)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

0

200

400

600

800

1000

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Ceiling Temperature (South), WTC Test 2

Exp (TCS1)

Exp (TCS2)

Exp (TCS3)

CFAST (Target 20)

CFAST (Target 21)

CFAST (Target 22)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

0

200

400

600

800

1000

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Ceiling Temperature (South), WTC Test 3

Exp (TCS1)

Exp (TCS2)

Exp (TCS3)

CFAST (Target 20)

CFAST (Target 21)

CFAST (Target 22)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

0

200

400

600

800

1000

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Ceiling Temperature (South), WTC Test 4

Exp (TCS1)

Exp (TCS2)

Exp (TCS3)

CFAST (Target 20)

CFAST (Target 21)

CFAST (Target 22)

0 20 40 60 80

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Ceiling Temperature (South), WTC Test 5

Exp (TCS1)

Exp (TCS2)

Exp (TCS3)

CFAST (Target 20)

CFAST (Target 21)

CFAST (Target 22)

0 20 40 60 80

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Ceiling Temperature (South), WTC Test 6

Exp (TCS1)

Exp (TCS2)

Exp (TCS3)

CFAST (Target 20)

CFAST (Target 21)

CFAST (Target 22)

303
 
0 10 20 30 40 50 60

0

200

400

600

800

1000

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Ceiling Temperature (East), WTC Test 1

Exp (TCE1)

Exp (TCE2)

Exp (TCE3)

Exp (TCE4)

CFAST (Target 11)

CFAST (Target 12)

CFAST (Target 13)

CFAST (Target 14)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

0

200

400

600

800

1000

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Ceiling Temperature (East), WTC Test 2

Exp (TCE1)

Exp (TCE2)

Exp (TCE3)

Exp (TCE4)

CFAST (Target 11)

CFAST (Target 12)

CFAST (Target 13)

CFAST (Target 14)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

0

200

400

600

800

1000

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Ceiling Temperature (East), WTC Test 3

Exp (TCE1)

Exp (TCE2)

Exp (TCE3)

Exp (TCE4)

CFAST (Target 11)

CFAST (Target 12)

CFAST (Target 13)

CFAST (Target 14)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

0

200

400

600

800

1000

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Ceiling Temperature (East), WTC Test 4

Exp (TCE1)

Exp (TCE2)

Exp (TCE3)

Exp (TCE4)

CFAST (Target 11)

CFAST (Target 12)

CFAST (Target 13)

CFAST (Target 14)

0 20 40 60 80

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Ceiling Temperature (East), WTC Test 5

Exp (TCE1)

Exp (TCE2)

Exp (TCE3)

Exp (TCE4)

CFAST (Target 11)

CFAST (Target 12)

CFAST (Target 13)

CFAST (Target 14)

0 20 40 60 80

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Ceiling Temperature (East), WTC Test 6

Exp (TCE1)

Exp (TCE2)

Exp (TCE3)

Exp (TCE4)

CFAST (Target 11)

CFAST (Target 12)

CFAST (Target 13)

CFAST (Target 14)

304
 
0 10 20 30 40 50 60

0

200

400

600

800

1000

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Ceiling Temperature (East), WTC Test 1

Exp (TCE5)

Exp (TCE6)

Exp (TCE7)

CFAST (Target 15)

CFAST (Target 16)

CFAST (Target 18)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

0

200

400

600

800

1000

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Ceiling Temperature (East), WTC Test 2

Exp (TCE5)

Exp (TCE6)

Exp (TCE7)

CFAST (Target 15)

CFAST (Target 16)

CFAST (Target 18)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

0

200

400

600

800

1000

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Ceiling Temperature (East), WTC Test 3

Exp (TCE5)

Exp (TCE6)

Exp (TCE7)

CFAST (Target 15)

CFAST (Target 16)

CFAST (Target 18)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

0

200

400

600

800

1000

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Ceiling Temperature (East), WTC Test 4

Exp (TCE5)

Exp (TCE6)

Exp (TCE7)

CFAST (Target 15)

CFAST (Target 16)

CFAST (Target 18)

0 20 40 60 80

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Ceiling Temperature (East), WTC Test 5

Exp (TCE5)

Exp (TCE6)

Exp (TCE7)

CFAST (Target 15)

CFAST (Target 16)

CFAST (Target 18)

0 20 40 60 80

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Ceiling Temperature (East), WTC Test 6

Exp (TCE5)

Exp (TCE6)

Exp (TCE7)

CFAST (Target 15)

CFAST (Target 16)

CFAST (Target 18)

305
 
0 10 20 30 40 50 60

0

200

400

600

800

1000

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Ceiling Temperature (West), WTC Test 1

Exp (TCW1)

Exp (TCW2)

Exp (TCW3)

Exp (TCW4)

CFAST (Target 23)

CFAST (Target 24)

CFAST (Target 25)

CFAST (Target 26)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

0

200

400

600

800

1000

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Ceiling Temperature (West), WTC Test 2

Exp (TCW1)

Exp (TCW2)

Exp (TCW3)

Exp (TCW4)

CFAST (Target 23)

CFAST (Target 24)

CFAST (Target 25)

CFAST (Target 26)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

0

200

400

600

800

1000

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Ceiling Temperature (West), WTC Test 3

Exp (TCW1)

Exp (TCW2)

Exp (TCW3)

Exp (TCW4)

CFAST (Target 23)

CFAST (Target 24)

CFAST (Target 25)

CFAST (Target 26)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

0

200

400

600

800

1000

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Ceiling Temperature (West), WTC Test 4

Exp (TCW1)

Exp (TCW2)

Exp (TCW3)

Exp (TCW4)

CFAST (Target 23)

CFAST (Target 24)

CFAST (Target 25)

CFAST (Target 26)

0 20 40 60 80

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Ceiling Temperature (West), WTC Test 5

Exp (TCW1)

Exp (TCW2)

Exp (TCW3)

Exp (TCW4)

CFAST (Target 23)

CFAST (Target 24)

CFAST (Target 25)

CFAST (Target 26)

0 20 40 60 80

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Ceiling Temperature (West), WTC Test 6

Exp (TCW1)

Exp (TCW2)

Exp (TCW3)

Exp (TCW4)

CFAST (Target 23)

CFAST (Target 24)

CFAST (Target 25)

CFAST (Target 26)

306
 
0 10 20 30 40 50 60

0

200

400

600

800

1000

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Ceiling Temperature (West), WTC Test 1

Exp (TCW5)

Exp (TCW6)

Exp (TCW7)

Exp (TCW8)

CFAST (Target 27)

CFAST (Target 28)

CFAST (Target 29)

CFAST (Target 31)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

0

200

400

600

800

1000

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Ceiling Temperature (West), WTC Test 2

Exp (TCW5)

Exp (TCW6)

Exp (TCW7)

Exp (TCW8)

CFAST (Target 27)

CFAST (Target 28)

CFAST (Target 29)

CFAST (Target 31)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

0

200

400

600

800

1000

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Ceiling Temperature (West), WTC Test 3

Exp (TCW5)

Exp (TCW6)

Exp (TCW7)

Exp (TCW8)

CFAST (Target 27)

CFAST (Target 28)

CFAST (Target 29)

CFAST (Target 31)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

0

200

400

600

800

1000

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Ceiling Temperature (West), WTC Test 4

Exp (TCW5)

Exp (TCW6)

Exp (TCW7)

Exp (TCW8)

CFAST (Target 27)

CFAST (Target 28)

CFAST (Target 29)

CFAST (Target 31)

0 20 40 60 80

0

200

400

600

800

1000

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Ceiling Temperature (West), WTC Test 5

Exp (TCW5)

Exp (TCW6)

Exp (TCW7)

Exp (TCW8)

CFAST (Target 27)

CFAST (Target 28)

CFAST (Target 29)

CFAST (Target 31)

0 20 40 60 80

0

200

400

600

800

1000

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Ceiling Temperature (West), WTC Test 6

Exp (TCW5)

Exp (TCW6)

Exp (TCW7)

Exp (TCW8)

CFAST (Target 27)

CFAST (Target 28)

CFAST (Target 29)

CFAST (Target 31)

307
 
0 10 20 30 40 50 60

0

200

400

600

800

1000

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Ceiling Temperature (Misc), WTC Test 1

Exp (TCEN1)

Exp (TCES1)

Exp (TCWS1)

Exp (TCWN1)

CFAST (Target 17)

CFAST (Target 19)

CFAST (Target 30)

CFAST (Target 32)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

0

200

400

600

800

1000

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Ceiling Temperature (Misc), WTC Test 2

Exp (TCEN1)

Exp (TCES1)

Exp (TCWS1)

Exp (TCWN1)

CFAST (Target 17)

CFAST (Target 19)

CFAST (Target 30)

CFAST (Target 32)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

0

200

400

600

800

1000

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Ceiling Temperature (Misc), WTC Test 3

Exp (TCEN1)

Exp (TCES1)

Exp (TCWS1)

Exp (TCWN1)

CFAST (Target 17)

CFAST (Target 19)

CFAST (Target 30)

CFAST (Target 32)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

0

200

400

600

800

1000

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Ceiling Temperature (Misc), WTC Test 4

Exp (TCEN1)

Exp (TCES1)

Exp (TCWS1)

Exp (TCWN1)

CFAST (Target 17)

CFAST (Target 19)

CFAST (Target 30)

CFAST (Target 32)

0 20 40 60 80

0

200

400

600

800

1000

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Ceiling Temperature (Misc), WTC Test 5

Exp (TCEN1)

Exp (TCES1)

Exp (TCWS1)

Exp (TCWN1)

CFAST (Target 17)

CFAST (Target 19)

CFAST (Target 30)

CFAST (Target 32)

0 20 40 60 80

0

200

400

600

800

1000

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Ceiling Temperature (Misc), WTC Test 6

Exp (TCEN1)

Exp (TCES1)

Exp (TCWS1)

Exp (TCWN1)

CFAST (Target 17)

CFAST (Target 19)

CFAST (Target 30)

CFAST (Target 32)

308
 
0 10 20 30 40 50 60

0

200

400

600

800

1000

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Wall Temperature, WTC Test 1

Exp (TC98)

Exp (TC100)

Exp (TC102)

CFAST (Target 33)

CFAST (Target 34)

CFAST (Target 35)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

0

200

400

600

800

1000

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Wall Temperature, WTC Test 2

Exp (TC98)

Exp (TC100)

Exp (TC102)

CFAST (Target 33)

CFAST (Target 34)

CFAST (Target 35)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

0

200

400

600

800

1000

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Wall Temperature, WTC Test 3

Exp (TC98)

Exp (TC100)

Exp (TC102)

CFAST (Target 33)

CFAST (Target 34)

CFAST (Target 35)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

0

200

400

600

800

1000

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Wall Temperature, WTC Test 4

Exp (TC98)

Exp (TC100)

Exp (TC102)

CFAST (Target 33)

CFAST (Target 34)

CFAST (Target 35)

0 20 40 60 80

0

200

400

600

800

1000

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Wall Temperature, WTC Test 5

Exp (TC98)

Exp (TC100)

Exp (TC102)

CFAST (Target 33)

CFAST (Target 34)

CFAST (Target 35)

0 20 40 60 80

0

200

400

600

800

1000

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Wall Temperature, WTC Test 6

Exp (TC98)

Exp (TC100)

Exp (TC102)

CFAST (Target 33)

CFAST (Target 34)

CFAST (Target 35)

309
 
0 10 20 30 40 50 60

0

200

400

600

800

1000

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Wall Temperature, WTC Test 1

Exp (TC103)

Exp (TC105)

Exp (TC106)

CFAST (Target 36)

CFAST (Target 37)

CFAST (Target 38)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

0

200

400

600

800

1000

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Wall Temperature, WTC Test 2

Exp (TC103)

Exp (TC105)

Exp (TC106)

CFAST (Target 36)

CFAST (Target 37)

CFAST (Target 38)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

0

200

400

600

800

1000

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Wall Temperature, WTC Test 3

Exp (TC103)

Exp (TC105)

Exp (TC106)

CFAST (Target 36)

CFAST (Target 37)

CFAST (Target 38)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

0

200

400

600

800

1000

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Wall Temperature, WTC Test 4

Exp (TC103)

Exp (TC105)

Exp (TC106)

CFAST (Target 36)

CFAST (Target 37)

CFAST (Target 38)

0 20 40 60 80

0

200

400

600

800

1000

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Wall Temperature, WTC Test 5

Exp (TC103)

Exp (TC105)

Exp (TC106)

CFAST (Target 36)

CFAST (Target 37)

CFAST (Target 38)

0 20 40 60 80

0

200

400

600

800

1000

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Wall Temperature, WTC Test 6

Exp (TC103)

Exp (TC105)

Exp (TC106)

CFAST (Target 36)

CFAST (Target 37)

CFAST (Target 38)

310
 
0 10 20 30 40 50 60

0

200

400

600

800

1000

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Wall Temperature, WTC Test 1

Exp (TC107)

Exp (TC109)

Exp (TC110)

CFAST (Target 39)

CFAST (Target 40)

CFAST (Target 41)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

0

200

400

600

800

1000

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Wall Temperature, WTC Test 2

Exp (TC107)

Exp (TC109)

Exp (TC110)

CFAST (Target 39)

CFAST (Target 40)

CFAST (Target 41)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

0

200

400

600

800

1000

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Wall Temperature, WTC Test 3

Exp (TC107)

Exp (TC109)

Exp (TC110)

CFAST (Target 39)

CFAST (Target 40)

CFAST (Target 41)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

0

200

400

600

800

1000

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Wall Temperature, WTC Test 4

Exp (TC107)

Exp (TC109)

Exp (TC110)

CFAST (Target 39)

CFAST (Target 40)

CFAST (Target 41)

0 20 40 60 80

0

200

400

600

800

1000

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Wall Temperature, WTC Test 5

Exp (TC107)

Exp (TC109)

Exp (TC110)

CFAST (Target 39)

CFAST (Target 40)

CFAST (Target 41)

0 20 40 60 80

0

200

400

600

800

1000

Time (min)

Temperature (

°C)

Wall Temperature, WTC Test 6

Exp (TC107)

Exp (TC109)

Exp (TC110)

CFAST (Target 39)

CFAST (Target 40)

CFAST (Target 41)

311
 
Heat flux to the ceiling and the floor were measured with a series of Schmidt-Boelter, watercooled heat flux gauges. 

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

0

20

40

60

80

100

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Surface Heat Flux, WTC Test 1

Exp (HCe1)

Exp (HCe4)

CFAST (Total Flux Target 83)

CFAST (Total Flux Target 86)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

0

20

40

60

80

100

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Surface Heat Flux, WTC Test 2

Exp (HCe1)

Exp (HCe4)

CFAST (Total Flux Target 83)

CFAST (Total Flux Target 86)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

0

20

40

60

80

100

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Surface Heat Flux, WTC Test 3

Exp (HCe1)

Exp (HCe4)

CFAST (Total Flux Target 83)

CFAST (Total Flux Target 86)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

0

20

40

60

80

100

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Surface Heat Flux, WTC Test 4

Exp (HCe1)

Exp (HCe4)

CFAST (Total Flux Target 83)

CFAST (Total Flux Target 86)

0 20 40 60 80

0

20

40

60

80

100

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Surface Heat Flux, WTC Test 5

Exp (HCe1)

Exp (HCe4)

CFAST (Total Flux Target 83)

CFAST (Total Flux Target 86)

0 20 40 60 80

0

20

40

60

80

100

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Surface Heat Flux, WTC Test 6

Exp (HCe1)

Exp (HCe4)

CFAST (Total Flux Target 83)

CFAST (Total Flux Target 86)

312
 
0 10 20 30 40 50 60

0

50

100

150

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Surface Heat Flux, WTC Test 1

Exp (HCe2)

Exp (HCe3)

CFAST (Total Flux Target 84)

CFAST (Total Flux Target 85)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

0

50

100

150

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Surface Heat Flux, WTC Test 2

Exp (HCe2)

Exp (HCe3)

CFAST (Total Flux Target 84)

CFAST (Total Flux Target 85)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

0

50

100

150

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Surface Heat Flux, WTC Test 3

Exp (HCe2)

Exp (HCe3)

CFAST (Total Flux Target 84)

CFAST (Total Flux Target 85)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

0

50

100

150

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Surface Heat Flux, WTC Test 4

Exp (HCe2)

Exp (HCe3)

CFAST (Total Flux Target 84)

CFAST (Total Flux Target 85)

0 20 40 60 80

0

50

100

150

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Surface Heat Flux, WTC Test 5

Exp (HCe2)

Exp (HCe3)

CFAST (Total Flux Target 84)

CFAST (Total Flux Target 85)

0 20 40 60 80

0

50

100

150

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Surface Heat Flux, WTC Test 6

Exp (HCe2)

Exp (HCe3)

CFAST (Total Flux Target 84)

CFAST (Total Flux Target 85)

313
 
0 10 20 30 40 50 60

0

20

40

60

80

100

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Surface Heat Flux, WTC Test 1

Exp (HF1)

Exp (HF2)

CFAST (Total Flux Target 81)

CFAST (Total Flux Target 82)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

0

20

40

60

80

100

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Surface Heat Flux, WTC Test 2

Exp (HF1)

Exp (HF2)

CFAST (Total Flux Target 81)

CFAST (Total Flux Target 82)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

0

20

40

60

80

100

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Surface Heat Flux, WTC Test 3

Exp (HF1)

Exp (HF2)

CFAST (Total Flux Target 81)

CFAST (Total Flux Target 82)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

0

20

40

60

80

100

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Surface Heat Flux, WTC Test 4

Exp (HF1)

Exp (HF2)

CFAST (Total Flux Target 81)

CFAST (Total Flux Target 82)

0 20 40 60 80

0

50

100

150

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Surface Heat Flux, WTC Test 5

Exp (HF1)

Exp (HF2)

CFAST (Total Flux Target 81)

CFAST (Total Flux Target 82)

0 20 40 60 80

0

50

100

150

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m

2

)

Surface Heat Flux, WTC Test 6

Exp (HF1)

Exp (HF2)

CFAST (Total Flux Target 81)

CFAST (Total Flux Target 82)

314
 
The following pages present comparisons of oxygen and carbon dioxide concentration predictions and measurements for the WTC experiments. There was only one measurement of each made 

near the ceiling of the compartment roughly 2 m from the fire. 

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

Time (min)

Volume Fraction

Oxygen Concentration, WTC Test 1

Exp (EO2)

CFAST (O2 1)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

Time (min)

Volume Fraction

CO2 Concentration, WTC Test 1

Exp (ECO2)

CFAST (CO2 1)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

Time (min)

Volume Fraction

Oxygen Concentration, WTC Test 2

Exp (EO2)

CFAST (O2 1)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

Time (min)

Volume Fraction

CO2 Concentration, WTC Test 2

Exp (ECO2)

CFAST (CO2 1)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

Time (min)

Volume Fraction

Oxygen Concentration, WTC Test 3

Exp (EO2)

CFAST (O2 1)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

Time (min)

Volume Fraction

CO2 Concentration, WTC Test 3

Exp (ECO2)

CFAST (CO2 1)

315
 
0 10 20 30 40 50 60

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

Time (min)

Volume Fraction

Oxygen Concentration, WTC Test 4

Exp (EO2)

CFAST (O2 1)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

Time (min)

Volume Fraction

CO2 Concentration, WTC Test 4

Exp (ECO2)

CFAST (CO2 1)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

Time (min)

Volume Fraction

Oxygen Concentration, WTC Test 5

Exp (EO2)

CFAST (O2 1)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

Time (min)

Volume Fraction

CO2 Concentration, WTC Test 5

Exp (ECO2)

CFAST (CO2 1)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

Time (min)

Volume Fraction

Oxygen Concentration, WTC Test 6

Exp (EO2)

CFAST (O2 1)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

Time (min)

Volume Fraction

CO2 Concentration, WTC Test 6

Exp (ECO2)

CFAST (CO2 1)

316